Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

AVON LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday.

IMPERIAL COLLEGE BILL [Lords]

UNIVERSITY OF WALES COLLEGE OF CARDIFF BILL [Lords] (changed from UNIVERSITY OF WALES CARDIFF BILL [Lords])

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Student Finance

Mr. Buckley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he now expects to publish his report on student finance; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): The student support review has not yet completed its work. The Government's proposals for the future of student support will be published in due course.

Mr. Buckley: As women are generally lower paid than men, what steps will the Under-Secretary take to ensure that there is no discrimination against female students applying for loans under the Government's proposals?

Mr. Jackson: The Government have not yet announced any proposals, so it is hard for me to comment. There has been a great deal of rather imaginative speculation in the press. We are determined that there will be no discrimination in the system of student support and that that system will promote access to higher education for everyone who is qualified for it.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that I attach great importance to student loans? Is he aware that the majority of cases of hardship that come to me are caused by parents who do not meet their parental responsibilities? Therefore, if students had access to loans, they would be infinitely better off. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the repayment terms are such that the system does not turn into a reverse dowry against girls and does not disadvantage those on long courses?

Mr. Jackson: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestions, but many countries have a student loan system that does not operate to the disadvantage of women. In fact, it secures greater access to higher education than does our system of grants. Only 8 per cent. of our entrants to universities come from social classes 4 and 5, which is a lower percentage than that in countries that operate student loan schemes.

Mr. James Lamond: Has the Minister considered the American experience of student loans? Is he aware that defaults on loans are running high—at least 20 per cent. or, perhaps, higher? The American Education Secretary, William J. Bennett, said that the defaults are now out of control. Despite trying a number of methods to recover the loans, the Americans are now talking about withholding student loan grants from institutes that cannot reduce defaults to below 20 per cent. Is that the sort of future that the Minister envisages for education

Mr. Jackson: I have already said that we are considering international experience. The United Kingdom is virtually the only country that does not have a loan element. We shall learn from the mistakes of other countries. Some of them—for example, Sweden—have a low default rate, so the evidence is not as conclusive as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that adults who have the vote should be fully prepared to take responsibility for financing their further education? Does he also agree that those who take loans would render themselves independent as adults, from both their parents and the Government?

Mr. Jackson: We have carried out a survey of student income and expenditure, which has shown that many parents do not pay the full parental contribution. About 40 per cent. fail to do so. There is no doubt that the provision of additional resources to students would help them to secure the greater independence to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister look carefully at the American experience, particularly the indictment of the loan system in the New York Times on 8 June, which pointed out that 25 per cent. of students were now defaulting in the United States, it was costing about ․2 billion from federal funds to meet the defaults, there was pressure for checking on the credit rating of students to stop defaults, and perhaps the most damning of all, over a 10-year period, from one in three students having to depend on loans rather than grants, three in four students were having to depend on loans? Surely we should not follow the United States and make the same mistake of bringing in a loan system that will be unfortunate for students and for national finance.

Mr. Jackson: We can learn a great deal from studying the experience of other countries, which have variegated systems of student support. The American experience in respect of defaults on loan payments is anomalous compared with the experience of other countries that have loan systems.

Head Teacher

Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department is in a position to make an assessment of the number of vacant head teacher posts; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): My Department estimates that at January 1988 approximately 300 head teacher posts were vacant. That is only slightly more than 1 per cent. of head teacher posts.

Mr. Martlew: Does the Secretary of State recognise that we have a growing problem with head teachers leaving the profession, many through early retirement, and that there is great difficulty in recruiting replacements? I understand that 50 per cent. of all head teacher jobs advertised in London have to be readvertised because of the lack of suitable applicants. Even in my constituency of Carlisle, for which Cumbria is the education authority, we now have a staff turnover of 10 per cent. Will not the new Education Reform Bill, with its ideas of turning head teachers into managing directors, add to that problem? We are likely to lose many of our best and most experienced head teachers. Will the Secretary of State make available £35 million to train head teachers, as requested by the National Association of Head Teachers? Will the Secretary of State meet the head teachers union to discuss their problems?

Mr. Baker: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's many questions, the interim advisory committee found no evidence of serious recruitment problems affecting head teacher posts. Certainly I have never heard that head teachers and teachers do not want to work in Cumbria —that is one of the more popular areas for teachers.
As for training, there will have to be extra training for teachers, particularly in managment skills. I am setting up a task force to plan and arrange that. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in that regard, but I can assure him that he is taking far too gloomy a view. Many head teachers are looking forward to the opportunities that the Bill will provide in giving them much bigger and better responsibilities.

Mr. Pawsey: I am certain that head teachers are looking forward to the Education Reform Bill becoming an Act, because of the additional opportunities that it will provide. To what extent do premature retirements figure in head teacher vacancies? Will my right hon. Friend also say a word about indiscipline in schools? In his opinion, is that preventing recruitment?

Mr. Baker: There is not a great deal of convincing evidence that there are a large number of premature retirements. I reported that there were 300 head teacher vacancies in January 1988—the first time that we have collected the figures. That is against 30,000 head teacher posts, and it is a very small figure indeed.
I and the Government are very conscious of the problems of violence and indiscipline in schools. That is why I have set up the Elton committee. Lord Elton and his committee are making rapid progress and I look to them to report by Christmas.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is the Secretary of State aware of the report that showed that many hundreds of head teachers are seeking early retirement? Is not the Government's

brutal approach to salaries and conditions of service creating that problem? Is the right hon. Gentleman not creating a legacy of and bad morale in our schools that will affect the education of our children for many years to come?

Mr. Baker: I do not agree. For the first time in the history of the teaching profession head teachers of the large comprehensives in our inner cities can earn as much as£32,000 a year. There is now effective career progression for teachers, with incentive allowances. There is no doubt that that will attract many people into the profession.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these vacant headships are mainly in politically perverse LEAs?

Mr. Baker: I do not have the figures, but I am sure that there is some connection.

Mr. Fatchett: Has the Secretary of State noticed a recent survey by Oxford polytechnic, which showed that half the head teacher posts vacant in London and the south-east were not filled on the first advertisement and that schools had run for some time without a head teacher? Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the recent comments by the National Association of Head Teachers, which has expressed its concern about the increasing burden placed on head teachers by the Education Reform Bill? The association has predicted that there will be an increase in the number of early retirements and suggested that Government action is needed to prevent head teachers from leaving the profession. In particular, the association has proposed expenditure of £35 million to establish a staff college for head teachers. Will the Government react positively to that proposal?

Mr. Baker: We shall certainly improve the quality of head teacher training. The task force, which I shall establish later in the year, will plan that. I want to involve the private sector, because private sector management training will be important. In those authorities where budgets have been delegated to heads, the heads have welcomed that move. They have found their jobs more interesting and their control of their schools better. I am sure that head teachers across the country are awaiting the implementation of our Bill.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no higher vocation than that of head teacher or deputy head teacher? Is he aware that they require reasonable sanctions with which to deal with difficult and recalcitrant pupils? Has my right hon. Friend seen last week's report by the National Association of Head Teachers, complaining that there have been no proper substitute discipline sanctions for corporal punishment since its abolition about two years ago? Will my right hon. Friend do something about that?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend was a deputy head teacher who decided to become a Member of Parliament, and teaching's loss is our gain. He brings great experience to the House. The power of head teachers to control disruptive behaviour is an important matter. Some head teachers feel that their powers have been undermined, and that is one reason why I have set up the Elton committee to report on the matter.

Nursery Education

Mr. Cummings: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the variability of the level of nursery education provision offered by different local authorities.

George Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what planned programme of expansion of educational provision for children between the ages of three and four years he expects to occur over the next three years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): The variations in education provision for the under-fives across the country reflect differences in local authorities' needs and priorities. The Government's current expenditure plans provide for the number of three and four-year-olds in nursery and primary schools to increase in line with the projected increase in their age cohorts up to 1992.

Mr. Cummings: Will the Minister reflect on the statement by the Prime Minister, who, as Secretary of State for Education and Science in 1972, called for nursery provision for 90 per cent. of four-year-olds and 50 per cent. of three-year-olds within 10 years? Has the Minister changed his mind? Does he intend to make the necessary resources available to meet this pressing need?

Mr. Dunn: Since 1979 the proportion of three and four-year-olds in nursery or primary schools nationally has increased from 37 to 44 per cent. The proportion of four-year-olds in such schools now exceeds 75 per cent. compared with 55 per cent. in 1979. The proportion would be much higher if rising-fives were included.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I welcome the improvement, but does my hon. Friend agree that there are many areas where the playgroup movement makes an important contribution and that many people welcome the variation in provision and would by no means agree that universal nursery school provision is the right approach?

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is right. The Government regard the playgroup movement as an important form of provision for under-fives and we always encourage it.

Mr. Flannery: Is there not a great and deliberate gap in the answers that the Minister is giving about nursery education? Throughout the country, and especially in the south, Tory authorities have practically no nursery education, because they want to keep the rates down. Last week members of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts were in Dorset, which has virtually no nursery education, and where they have preschool playgroups which are cheaper in every way. Is it not apparent that Tory authorities are trying to educate ordinary children on the cheap, and that only in Labour areas do ordinary children go to nursery school?

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman goes too far. The Opposition have plenty of ideas for spending other people's money, but not one sensible idea about how to create wealth. It is clear to me that nursery education for all would be very expensive and, furthermore, would not be appropriate for all children. How do the Opposition propose to pay for nursery education for all?

Mr. Thornton: Does my hon. Friend accept that variation in the provision of nursery education is to be welcomed and that the content of the curriculum is more important than the definitive form of the provision? Does he accept, however, that there are considerable misgivings about the number of four-year-olds who are being taught in primary schools and for whom the timetable and curriculum are wholly inappropriate to their years'' Will he consider that point?

Mr. Dunn: The admission of under-fives to reception classes is at the discretion of local education authorities. It is important that the provision for those pupils should be appropriately and adequately resourced. The Government are aware that the presence of significant numbers of four-year-olds can give rise to problems in some areas and, through the agency of Her Majesty's inspectors, we are closely monitoring the situation.

Mrs. Clwyd: Surely the Minister is not disagreeing with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who favours—or favoured—nursery education for all. The Minister spoke about costs. In the past 10 years, however, total public spending on child care services, including local authority nurseries, has hardly increased, despite the increase in the numbers of women going out to work and the increasing demands for provision reflected in survey after survey. Surely the truth is that the Government have no targets, no standards and no concern for the needs of the under-fives. The Minister apparently has no comment to make about the vastly differing provision available in the LEAs. What does he have to say about Labour Hounslow which provides 64 per cent. of its children with nursery education, and about Gloucestershire, which provides no nursery education?

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask the hon. Lady to be brief and to ask a question?

Mrs. Clwyd: It is a simple question. Why do the Government continue to ignore the needs of the under-fives?

Mr. Dunn: I remind the hon. Lady that the Government plan to provide for an increase of about 5 per cent. between now and 1992 in expenditure for the education of the under-fives. That is on top of a 25 per cent. increase in expenditure over the past five years.

Mr. Rathbone: I reject the Opposition's criticisms, but does my hon. Friend accept that there is increasing awareness of the importance of pre-school education for children, not least so that they can take advantage of the improved teaching standards that the Government are bringing about in primary and secondary education? Will the Government therefore plan for an extension of nursery education for all children?

Mr. Dunn: The Government have always accepted that some pre-school experience is beneficial for the under-fives, both at the time and later, but this sector must compete with others for the resources that are available. However, I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Inner London Education Authority

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent assessment he has


made of the effects of his proposals for the funding of education in London, following abolition of the Inner London education authority, on the quality of education in London and the south-east.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: From 1990 LEAs in London will, under the provisions of the Local Government Finance Bill, be financed in the same way as other authorities in England. Our education policy in inner London is to improve the quality and increase the accountability of the education service.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not incongruous that the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), the Minister who is responsible for these matters, should be begging me to go to the Inner London education authority to secure funds for the Merchant Navy college, Greenhithe, which is in his constituency, when he is cutting the money for ILEA and promoting its abolition? Can we not, on a more bipartisan basis, find some way forward whereby the future of this college, this national facility, can be safeguarded?

Mr. Baker: When the hon. Gentleman talks about a bipartisan policy, that is the time to count the spoons.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Answer the question.

Mr. Baker: I am about to answer it. I know that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) takes a great interest in the future of the Merchant Navy college in Dartford. The future of the college is a matter for ILEA, and I understand that ILEA has been reviewing its future for many months. That is a quite separate question from the transfer of responsibilities to the boroughs. I understand that ILEA will be taking a decision shortly.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend not find it extraordinary that when the Inner London education authority takes an interest in the Merchant Navy college in Dartford, all of a sudden it wishes to abolish it? Does he not consider that it is more than a coincidence that that abolition by ILEA, a Labour-controlled authority, should be in the constituency of one of the Education Ministers?

Mr. Baker: As I have already said, I am rather on the sidelines, because it is a further education college. Therefore, it does not come to me in my role as the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I understand that ILEA has been looking at the future of the college for a very considerable time, and it is for ILEA to decide whether it wishes to retain it.

Mr. Straw: Does the Secretary of State accept that the financing and future arrangements for the transfer of ILEA to the London boroughs is a matter of great importance? That is why, despite the fact that we profoundly disagree with the policy, Labour London boroughs, in the interests of the children of London, are co-operating with a will to secure an orderly transfer. Does the Secretary of State accept that he needs to measure up to his responsibilities? Since the service could not cope with cuts during the transfer, when does he intend to guarantee the finances of ILEA? If it is important to him, can he explain why twice as many civil servants are

working on the education of a few hundred children in city technology colleges as are working on a transfer of education that affects 270,000 children in London?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman asks me how many of my civil servants are working in the unit. I gave him the reply to that question in Hansard. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that many other civil servants in other parts of my Department, at middle management and senior management level, are concerned with ILEA. I am very pleased that since the decision of the House of Lords all individual London Labour boroughs have visited my Department's unit. It is quite clear that, constructively, and apparently with some relish in many cases, they are planning to become local education authorities in 1990, when the boroughs will inherit all the schools and colleges as going concerns and will have the resources to maintain them.

Mr. Ashdown: HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)?"—The House may be assured that I would rather have a leadership election in my party than no leader at all, as in the Labour party. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us return to the question.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Secretary of State say what estimates, if any, he has made of the extra costs to be imposed on London ratepayers because of the appointment of chief education officers and senior officers, some at £40,000 a year, in every London borough, and why he believes that that will reduce the cost of education in London, about which he has complained so much?

Mr. Baker: We are glad to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place. Clearly he is keeping the education portfolio warm, just in case matters do not work out.
As to the cost being borne by inner London boroughs, I have already said that there will be grants for the current financial year of about million, and of about 10 million for next year, to assist them in meeting the expense of preparing for the 1990 transfer.

Burnage School, Manchester (Inquiry Report)

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has now received a copy of the inquiry report concerning events at Burnage school, Manchester; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I have now received a copy of the full Burnage inquiry report and of the legal advice Manchester city council has received. I am considering the implications of those documents carefully.

Mr. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is vital that all schools promote racial harmony and tolerance, the anti-racist, doctrinaire policies adopted by the Burnage school in Manchester and by some Labour local authorities elsewhere are in danger of alienating the vast majority of parents and pupils, and thus of being counter-productive?

Mr. Baker: What happened at the Burnage school was a very tragic episode, and anyone who reads the report cannot help but be moved by the tragic sequence of events. I agree that good race relations are not best served by the


clumsy application of anti-racist policies. Mutual respect and tolerance must be the key pillars of any race relations policy.

Mr. Bradley: I hope that when the Secretary of State has considered the documents, he will publish them in the Library, so that everyone can read the report, and so that the unwarranted criticism of the school which has been made yet again in the House by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), can be put in its place. We may then have an opportunity to congratulate the school on the efforts that have been made over the past two years, and to congratulate the staff, governors and parents on their invaluable work in trying to enhance the school. Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way forward is to recognise the valuable work done by Manchester city council on race relations policies and their implementation in Manchester schools? I hope that he will support such policies and provide adequate resources to ensure that they are continued and extended in Manchester and throughout the country.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman asks me to publish the report, but it raises complex legal matters on which I am still receiving advice. I must bear in mind that the inquiry was not the same as the judicial public inquiry held in the case of the Zeebrugge and King's Cross disasters. It is not a question of a cover-up, but of where the public interest lies in relation to the rights of those individuals named in the report. I must take careful legal advice on that point.

Mr. Budgen: I remind my right hon. Friend that pernicious policies of reverse discrimination are wide-spread. When the local authority for Colton Hills schools in Wolverhampton wished to introduce the teaching of Punjabi to all children on a compulsory basis, and when some of the parents——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question concerns Burnage school in Manchester.

Mr. Budgen: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, it is about the principle there.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With great respect, it is about events at Burnage school.

Mr. Budgen: Is it not the case, Mr. Speaker, that such events may recur elsewhere, for such policies are being opposed in many schools? When parents protest, they are rudely and roundly described as racist, in a way that is counter-productive.

Mr. Baker: Some of the report's conclusions comment on the application of anti-racist policies. However, the incidents mentioned there relate very much to Burnage school. There are other schools in the Manchester area where similar policies have been pursued, but not with such tragic consequences. I make it clear to my hon. Friend and to the House that there is no place in our schools for any manifestation of racial antagonism or intolerance. We are pursuing a range of measures to overcome racial disharmony.

Education Reform

Mr. Sean Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the progress of the working parties established in relation to the national curriculum.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): My right hon. Friend is expecting final reports from the mathematics and science working groups by the end of this month. These reports, together with my right hon. Friend's comments, will be published in due course. Working groups for English and for design and technology were set up on 29 April. The English working group has been asked to report on the primary stages by 30 September and on the secondary stages by 30 April next year. Interim and final reports of the design and technology working group are to be submitted by 31 October and 30 April respectively.

Mr. Hughes: To avoid any confusion about the teaching of history as part of the curriculum, will the Minister make it clear whether she supports the Secretary of State's view that the teaching of history is an integral part of the curriculum foundation course, or whether she supports the Prime Minister's view, expressed in the Oxford university magazine last year, that the teaching of history is a luxury?

Mrs. Rumbold: It is perfectly clear from the way in which the Education Reform Bill is formulated that history is regarded by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, indeed, by the Government, as one of our foundation subjects. Therefore, history will be taught within the foundation subjects in all schools as and when the working party reports to us.

Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend proceed at a leisurely pace on the setting up of the working group on foreign languages, since it is not immediately clear from where the staff to teach that discipline are to come?

Mrs. Rumbold: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take note of my hon. Friend's comments on that matter. It is our intention ultimately to set up a working group on the teaching of foreign languages, and the supply of teachers will form part of our considerations when the working groups have reported and the national curriculum is introduced into our schools.

Ms. Armstrong: Will the Secretary of State ensure that some of the working parties consider health education? Will they support the view of the Minister for Health that anti-smoking campaigns should be pursued in schools? If so, will the Minister consider what will happen in city technology colleges? Will the Government make sure that the basic curriculum is followed there as well as in other schools?

Ms. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will fund the city technology colleges when he is satisfied that the core and foundation subjects are being satisfactorily taught as part of their curriculum. We expect health education to be part of the schools' curriculum outside the core and foundation subjects, and also part of the cross-curricula themes, of which we would expect the science working group in particular to take note.

Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further steps he is taking to ensure that head teachers and governors are adequately trained for their expanded duties under the Education Reform Bill.

Mr. Dunn: We propose to give priority within the local education authority training grant scheme to training which will support heads and senior teachers in implementing the initiatives introduced in our Bill. My right hon. Friend has also recently announced proposals to establish a task force for management training. We further propose that education support grants should be available in 1989–90 on £5 million of expenditure on the training of school and college governors, and £25 million of expenditure to ensure that head teachers and governors are properly supported during the introduction of financial delegation to our schools.

Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Education Reform Bill opens new perspectives for head teachers and gives school governors a proper job to do for the first time? Does he further agree that the training opportunities that he has outlined today, and the Government's publicity campaign, may and should alert many more people in all walks of life, including business, to the opportunities that they will have to influence education at the level of the individual school?

Mr. Dunn: Yes, Sir. To that end, over 3·5 million copies of "Shouldn't you become a school governor?" and nearly 750,000 copies of "School governors—a new role" have been distributed. The leaflets have been widely welcomed and there is continuing demand for them, especially from schools. The opportunities ahead are exciting.

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister recognise that many people who are concerned about education are worried that head teachers, rather than being involved in education, will increasingly become business managers, and feel that this will be detrimental to the education of our children? Can he give an assurance that we will be able to find governors who are able to give the time that is necessary to deal with the new responsibilities that will be laid upon governors? It is not all about training. We need people who are able to give the time that is necessary as well.

Mr. Dunn: In the context of the first part of the question posed by the hon. Member, I believe that the reverse is the case. All our provisions, especially financial delegation, will allow head teachers to devote more time to the improvement of education in their schools, rather than constantly banging on the doors of the education office to get minor things done which are time-consuming. With regard to the second part of the question, it is incumbent on all of us in this Chamber, and many outside, to ensure a supply of highly motivated, enthusiastic individuals who are ready to serve as school governors, irrespective of the source from which they might come.

Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that before one can train school governors one has to find them, that one of the most effective ways of finding them is by increasing the use of volunteers at all levels within the schools, and that people can graduate from being volunteers helping the school to being school governors? Will he undertake to

look very seriously at the possibility of expanding the use of volunteers to assist in the education of our children? [Interruption.]

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: They have sacked all the governors in Kent.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: And they have sacked all the governors in Staffordshire.

Mr. Dunn: If I am allowed to answer the question, I should like to point out that the reforms upon which we have embarked are giving governors more say in the management of their schools. This should make the role of a school governor, and school government, much more attractive to many people who have previously not considered it. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) goes on about the county of Kent. I ask him to address his interest to what has taken place in the county of Staffordshire.

Mr. Cryer: If the Minister has a moment, may I ask whether it will not mean a massive increase in expenditure to train these heads and governors, with no educational advantage? Head teachers and governors in my constituency of Bradford, South are desperately pressing for money from the Government to increase the number of buildings. As the Minister knows, there are 500 temporary classrooms. All this training will not get round the enormous problem of making sure that there are adequate premises, which is the Government's responsibility. When will they face it and provide money to replace some of the 500 temporary classrooms in my constituency and elsewhere in Bradford?

Mr. Dunn: I am absolutely horrified by the question posed by the hon. Member. I know that he has been out of the House of Commons for some time, and will undoubtedly be so again, and I must point out to him that our capital programme is much improved and that most of what he said is both rubbish and irrelevant. Secondly, the reforms on which we have embarked will encourage a more positive attitude from those who are, and those who wish to become, school governors under these reforms.

Open Enrolment

Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he plans to introduce open enrolment in schools.

Mr. Dunn: From September 1990 all secondary schools will have to be prepared to admit as many pupils as they can accommodate. Many admissions authorities should be ready to respond to parental demand before that date and we shall give them every encouragement to do so.

Mr. Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that this policy of open enrolment in schools has been widely welcomed by parents in south Buckinghamshire because of the increased choice that it will give them? Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that there is no slippage in this programme? Could it not be brought forward to 1989?

Mr. Dunn: We considered the question of timing during our deliberations, especially in Committee. It is clear to us that this policy can be adopted by schools and local authorities now. Many local authorities follow a policy of


open enrolment, much to the satisfaction of parents in the communities that they serve. Because we recogniseed that open enrolment would pose an administrative problem and place further demands upon local education authorities and governors, we decided to introduce it from September 1990.

City Technology Colleges

Mr. Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a further statement about the financing of city technology colleges.

Mrs. Rumbold: Overall planned expenditure on the city technology colleges programme is £86 million in the present public expenditure planning period. To date more than£20 million has been pledged by sponsors towards the capital costs of establishing CTCs. The normal running costs of CTCs will be met by Exchequer grant.

Mr. Turner: Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State still believes that the substantial cost of CTCs should be borne by the private sector, especially since he made that speech to the Conservative conference last year? Also, if there is to be fairness, what contribution is he prepared to make to state-maintained schools in those areas where CTCs are being set up? What funds will be available for state-maintained schools to advance their science and technology teaching?

Mrs. Rumbold: In the first place, this is the greatest amount of money ever pledged from the private sector to support schools. Private sector money is most welcome to support my right hon. Friend's inspired initiative in setting up these new schools for children who live in deprived urban areas. The Labour and Alliance parties could have assisted in the initiative had they been more willing as local authorities to give planning permission so that buildings that are no longer required could have been used for this extraordinarily good initiative, to enable children to gain from the education that their parents want for them.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend is in Toronto for an economic summit meeting. N

Mr. Livingstone: Will the Leader of the House take time today to consider the grave security implications arising from three letters by Airey Neave to a former active officer in MI5, recruiting that officer to do freelance work for the Conservative party, updating disinformation and propaganda exercises against the Labour Government? Will he set up an inquiry to consider how it was that Airey Neave knew that this individual had been working for MI5, how he knew how to contact him, and how he was aware of the existence of that black propaganda exercise if he was not involved in it?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is obsessed with this subject. I have nothing to add to the many answers that have been given on the subject already.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Hicks: Will my right hon. Friend convey to our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister our congratulations on the leading role that she has taken in the economic summit on the important subjects of the world economy, drugs, and terrorism? Does he agree that under her stewardship Britain is now recognised as a world leader and not the sick man of Europe, as we were known under the Labour Administration?

Mr. Wakeham: It is clear that under the Prime Minister and this Government Britain plays a leading role in world affairs. The value of the sound and sensible policies that we have pursued has been recognised throughout the world. Only on the Opposition Benches do hon. Members; cling to out-dated and unworkable policies.

Mr. Kinnock: Do the consequences of the policies of which the right hon. Gentleman was speaking include the revised estimate for the balance of payments deficit for the first quarter and the anticipated £10 billion deficit for this year, despite massive oil revenues?

Mr. Wakeham: The 1987 current deficit is less than half of 1 per cent. of the GDP, compared with 3 to 4 per cent. during the mid-1970s. The cumulative surplus of £211 billion from 1980 to 1987 compares with a deficit of over £5 billion from 1975 to 1979.

Mr. Kinnock: It would only be confirming with the right hon. Gentleman's customary fairness to set the massive oil revenues against the figure that he now produces. As he cannot be content with the possibility of a £10 billion balance of payments deficit and a £20 billion trade deficit, will he tell us what the Government intend to do to close those gaps?

Mr. Wakeham: The economy has come through major fluctuations in the price of oil without crisis and, because of our sound economic policies, the prospects remain excellent. The stock of United Kingdom overseas assets at the end of 1987 were provisionally estimated at £90 billion, or 21 per cent. of GDP. Our invisible surpluses are the largest in the world.

Mr. Aitken: On a rather more important security matter, will my right hon. Friend find time today to go down to GCHQ and find the Government's top code breakers and cryptologists and ask them to provide an English translation of the incomprehensible gibberish that appeard in this morning's Independent, under the headline "Labour's defence policy: Neil Kinnock explains"?

Mr. Wakeham: I have the greatest admiration for the effectiveness of our security system, but I do not believe that the people concerned could understand the gibberish coming from the Labour party.

Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Michie: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to distance himself and the Government from the statement that was made in another place last week suggesting that lotteries should be produced as an inducement to people to pay their poll tax early, in a lump sum? Does he agree that such a blatant bribe will be anathema to many people, and that in Scotland it is nothing more than a bribe, or, at best, a gimmick that would in the end benefit only the well off?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not one of those who are very enthusiastic about lotteries. I believe that the community charge introduced in Scotland is a much fairer tax than we have had before and will be seen to be a much better basis of paying for local government than heretofore.

Mr. Hanley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hanley: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), will my right hon. Friend do all he can tonight to secure the successful passage of the motion relating to financial assistance to Opposition parties, because I, and no doubt the whole House, need good research from the Labour party so that it can explain the differences between its defence policy at the general election, last week, this week and no doubt next week?

Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend, but he has set an ambitious target in seeking to follow all the variations in policy proposed by the Labour party. I fear that even the significant increase in financial assistance to Opposition parties which I have proposed and which I hope my hon. Friends will support would not be sufficient to enable them to explain all their policies.

Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Ms. Armstrong: Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister how she reconciles the policies of two of her Ministers? One of them has urged a smoking ban on all teachers to ensure that at least half the children who might take up smoking will not do so, and the other is accepting money from British-American Tobacco for the establishment of a school when the chairman of that company says he would expect that the school would not have in it any anti-smoking campaigns.

Mr. Wakeham: The Government's policy on smoking is well known. Health warnings are clearly given, with the support of the Government. British-American Tobacco is a company with a wide range of interests, and the Government welcome its support for education.

Mr. Rathbone: In the light of the Government's magnificent lead in tackling international drug trafficking, will my right hon. Friend tell the House how the

Government plan to support the international day of action against drug misuse and illicit trafficking, which was approved by all members of the United Nations last November and will take place on Monday?

Mr. Wakeham: The Government attach high priority to international co-operation against drug misuse. The international day of action against drug misuse has been re-scheduled for Monday 27 June. The Government's anti-drug strategy is kept under review by a ministerial group on drug misuse, and it will meet on that day to take stock of progress and to make plans for future action.

Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Janner: When the Prime Minister returns from her journey abroad, will the right hon. Gentleman please refer to her for her personal attention the plight of children with special needs who are being educated in special schools throughout the country? Will he especially ask her to look into the reason why, with the cuts in the Health Service and the mix-up in the Department of Education and Science, thousands are unable to walk or to use their facilities as they cannot get the physiotherapy that they need? Since April thousands more have lost the free school meals that they should have. Why are these resources being taken away from the children who need them most?

Mr. Wakeham: The Government have provided substantially more funds for the disabled and for education than in the past. It is up to local authorities to decide how best to spend their resources.

Mr. Kirkhope: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Kirkhope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very encouraging to hear the words of Mr. Hammond, the leader of the EETPU, extolling modern work practices? Does he also agree that it is rather depressing that the Trades Union Congress and leading unions do not appear to share Mr. Hammond's views?

Mr. Wakeham: I am certain that among the millions of our citizens who are members of trades unions many want to see Britain prosper, work practices improve and outdated practices disappear. It is a pity that some trade union leaders do not seem to reflect the views of their members. Mr. Hammond is reflecting his members' views.

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Haynes: Will the Leader of the House be honest with the House and the people about supporting the private Member's Bill concerning ports in Yorkshire? Will


he admit that it is related to the privatisation of the electricity industry? Why do the Government not be honest about the thing and let people know?

Mr. Wakeham: Private Bills come before the House under the general direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Government's position on the Bill will be made clear in the speech made by the Minister in the debate, and I look forward to listening to it.

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some monents ago.

Mr. Fatchett: Last night the Government intended that the House should debate regulations that would increase the price of concessionary television licences for old-age pensioners from 5p to £5 and reduce the number of old-age pensioners who could qualify for such licences. How do the Government justify such a mean attack on old-age pensioners?

Mr. Wakeham: I have agreed through the usual channels that the order that was unfortunately lost last night will be retabled on the Order Paper to enable the hon. Gentleman and others to make their points on another occasion. The point at issue was that the original arrangemens, which had worked for a long time, fell foul of some legal decisions, and the Government propose to put forward what they believe to be an equitable solution in a difficult area.

VAT (European Court Decision)

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the judgment delivered by the European Court of Justice today in the case brought by the European Commission on certain of our VAT zero rates.
The court ruled that the United Kingdom was not in breach of its treaty obligations by zero rating private housing, animal feeding stuffs, seeds and live animals yielding food for consumption. However, it ruled that the zero rating by the United Kingdom of a number of other goods and services was not permitted under European Community law. In broad terms, these items are: the construction of buildings for industrial and commercial use, water and sewerage services supplied to industry, news services supplied to other than final consumers, fuel and power supplied to other than final consumers, and protective boots and helmets purchased by employers. I have placed the full text of the judgment in the Library of the House.
I should make it clear that this adverse judgment is based on an interpretation of existing Community law to which the United Kingdom gave its assent in 1977. It has nothing whatever to do with the Commission's proposals for the approximation of VAT, which are not law and could not become law without the unanimous agreement of all member states.
The Government will study carefully the detailed terms of the court's judgment, against which there is no right of appeal and with which it is obliged to comply. The Government will consult interested parties, including trade and professional bodies, and also charities, on how the judgment can best be applied in practice. Legislation to implement the judgment will then be brought before the House for approval as part of next year's Budget. I can give the House an assurance that no changes will take effect before 1 April 1989.
In the meantime, I am concerned to avoid the damaging effects of a period of uncertainty for the construction industry and its customers, and to mitigate the effects of the extension of VAT to non-domestic construction. I therefore have the following decisions to announce.
Non-domestic construction, the sale of new non-domestic buildings, and the sale of building land for non-domestic developments will be taxed at the standard rate of VAT from 1 April 1989. All contracts entered into before today will continue to be zero rated. Public sector construction programmes will be protected by allowing, where necessary, compensating adjustments to the relevant central Government expenditure provision. Full refunds of VAT on non-domestic construction will be available to health authorities and local authorities.
Owners of non-domestic property will be given the option to charge VAT on rents, and on sales of used buildings, from 1 August 1989. This option will apply to existing buildings as well as new ones. Where it is exercised, landlords and tenants will be able to reclaim VAT on input costs in the normal way. This means that, where buildings are occupied by fully taxable businesses, neither landlord nor tenants will be worse off. To protect tenants who are not fully taxable, any VAT on rents will be phased in over two years. For charities, the transitional

period will be five years. I hope that it will be possible to publish draft Finance Bill clauses relating to non-domestic construction by January.
The estimated yield from the proposals that I have announced will be some £65 million for the initial year, 1989–90, rising to a full year level of £160 million in 1991–92. That compares with the full year yield of £425 million that would accrue from the tax if the measures of mitigation which I have just announced were not introduced.
A consultation document on the changes affecting non-domestic construction will be available in the Vote Office and Library when I sit down. A more general consultation paper on the other aspects of the judgment will be available shortly. Much remains to be considered and there will be full consultation by the Customs and Excise on the implication of the changes.
We find ourselves obliged by undertakings Her Majesty's Government gave in 1977 to impose VAT on non-domestic construction and certain other services. I have announced today measures to mitigate their impact and to minimise uncertainty. I assure the House that there will now be full consultation so that the necessary legislation can be properly considered and prepared for next year's Finance Bill.

Dr. John Marek: The whole country will be disappointed at the outcome of the European court's judgment. Yet again new taxes are to be imposed on the public against the wishes of Government and Parliament. However, is the Economic Secretary aware that we welcome the court's decision not to insist on the imposition of VAT on all building for housing, animal feed, seeds, and live animals used as food for human consumption. Before implementing the court's decision, will he consult all interested parties carefully so that appropriate transitional arrangements can be found and so that those with contractual obligations are not unfairly penalised?
As some building land is to become subject to VAT, how does the Economic Secretary propose to define it? Will he confirm that, although the construction of schools and hospitals will become subject to VAT, full relief will automatically be available for any and all VAT payable in the future by the authorities responsible for those schools and hospitals when constructing the buildings, and for any associated expenses?
Will the Economic Secretary undertake to ensure that any extra moneys necessary to pay VAT on fuel for schools and hospitals will be provided by the Exchequer? Will county councils be fully reimbursed for any VAT that they may have to pay on road construction? Does he intend that VAT to be paid on construction of railways will be paid for by the travelling public, or can he give an undertaking to the House that the Exchequer will reimburse British Rail for all extra VAT costs? Can he assure the House that the Channel tunnel construction, until completion, will not be subject to VAT?
Will the Economic Secretary go the Commission to try to obtain derogation for some or all of the items to be subject to VAT, or can he introduce a second lower tier? If that is not possible, will he try to obtain an agreement within the Council of Ministers for a fairer and more just interpretation of the sixth VAT directive so that items such as these and spectacle frames, which have been the subject of legislation in the past, can be free of VAT?
Does the Economic Secretary think it fair that the United Kingdom should pay all the costs of the court case, in spite of being vindicated in two important areas?
It is a black day when the taxation of the British people is decided by other than their Parliament. The Common Market can succeed, but it is not going about it the right way.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman suggested that there will be universal disappointment at the ruling. However, we have won on the most important issue of private homes, and that will be greatly welcomed. There will also be recognition that the fundamental commitment to the sixth directive was taken by the Labour Government in 1977. It ill behoves the Labour party to express disappointment now.
I have made it clear that there will be full consultation with all those affected by the decisions relating to the implementation of the points that I have made and the other items covered by the ruling. The definition that we propose on building land is that such land without planning permission for domestic housing will be subject to VAT, but we shall obviously consult on how that will be interpreted in practice. I assure the hon. Gentleman that schools and hospitals in the public sector will be fully reimbursed for any VAT that they may incur. County councils likewise are automatically reimbursed for all VAT on all items that they purchase. That will consequently apply equally to roads.
I imagine that the constructors of the Channel tunnel will also secure registration for VAT and be able to reclaim VAT. However, I will confirm that and write to the hon. Gentleman if there is any difference.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's question about seeking derogation or a lower tier rate, any attempt to seek derogation from the European Commission would scarcely be credible since the Commission brought the case. As for the lower tier rate, we believe that it is far better to have a single positive rate and an extensive zero rate. We do not want to return to a complex system with multiple rates.
We understand that the Commission will not be seeking payment of its costs in the court case. That is the normal practice in the circumstances. We will have to pay our costs, the bulk of which are internal. Only some £7,000 of consultancy fees and counsel opinion costs were incurred.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Is the Minister aware that he is absolutely right to stress that the decision does not affect the fundamental issue of zero rating? Will he take careful note of the court's view that the Commission does not dispute the legality of the zero rating system in general? May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on stating that the right system is one with zero rating and a single positive rate? Will he fight for that in the political negotiations which are to come? In general, I believe that it is right that my hon. Friend has abided by the rule of law, even though that is the consequence of a decision taken by a predecessor Government.

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's remarks. I confirm that we shall stick to a single positive rate and the extensive use of zero rating, as has been the practice. I believe that my right hon. Friend oversaw that system when it was introduced. It is correct that in the court case the Commission did not try to overrule our basic right to have zero rates. We welcome that.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Economic Secretary to the Treasury accept that the judgment seems eminently reasonable and that the Government are to be congratulated on arguing successfully for an exemption for domestic housing, which clearly is a case on its own? Will the hon. Gentleman therefore confirm that now there is no VAT—a policy which has been upheld—on domestic house new building but that there is still VAT on renovation, restoration, and the like? Does he accept that in the next Budget the Government's inner city policy should require further tax changes, in addition to the changes that the Minister has already announced, to give incentives to people to restore and to build in the inner city rather than equal encouragement to build on green field sites?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman will probably be in a very small minority in welcoming the judgment as a whole, although possibly he is harking back to the dead parrot manifesto of his erstwhile leader, who wanted VAT extended to almost everything. There will be no change to VAT on renovation and repairs in relation to domestic properties and we do not propose to make any changes.

Mr. John Biffen: When the legislation necessary to give effect to these somewhat contentious proposals is before the House and the House amends or rejects it, what then?

Mr. Lilley: Exactly the same consequences would flow as would always be the case if we failed to implement legislation passed to us from the European Community.

Mr. Peter Shore: We have heard not so much a statement as a mini Budget. Is this not another brutal reminder of the extent to which the House has ceased to be master of its own affairs? Is it not a clear breach of faith? Were we not assured that the existing United Kingdom zero rate would continue until the Council, by a unanimous vote, agreed to adopt what it called a "Europe without fiscal frontiers"? Have not the procedures laid down by the Commission for review under article 28 simply been flouted and ignored? Is not the court acting ultra vires? In those circumstances, what obligation has Britain to carry out the court's ruling?

Mr. Lilley: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the ruling is a brutal reminder of the decision taken by the Government of whom he was a member. He is also correct in saying that we will retain a zero rate. There is no question of the court acting ultra vires; it is intepreting the sixth directive that was agreed by the House and the Government in 1977. Any attempt to remove zero rates could be taken only with the unanimous consent of all member states, including this country.

Mr. David Curry: Does my hon. Friend accept that there will be great relief that the Government have acted so promptly in outlining the precise measures that they intend to take in response to the judgment? Nothing could have been worse than a long period of delay with uncertainty. Does he also accept that the construction industry will be especially pleased by the offer of an option for taxation and that the public spending targets will be upgraded to take account of VAT that the Government will now charge on their construction projects?
Will my hon. Friend remind the House that the mitigation measures have cost the Treasury a substantial sum? Will he speculate on whether the Opposition would have been in a position to grant such generous mitigation?

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, the last of which is very apposite. I cannot imagine that a party committed to such widespread increases in public expenditure would have been prepared to forgo the large amount of revenue that we have forgone by mitigating the measures. I hope that the construction industry will welcome the decisions that we have taken today, although it will not welcome the ruling itself any more than we do. It sought—and we have endeavoured to provide in the statement—a delay before its implementation so that there would be time for consultation, protection of existing contracts, the option to rent and protection of public sector construction programmes. We have provided for all those and more, because we have also suggested that the procedure be phased in over a couple of years—five years in the case of charities—which, in fact, goes beyond what the construction industry sought.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that the ruling is a total routing of the Government by the European court? Is that why he has hidden the fact that the entire costs of the case have been awarded against the Government? Is it not true that this Parliament has lost because it has no option other than to accept the new legislation that the Minister will propose? Is it not also true that the people of the United Kingdom have lost because they will have to spend £160 million more per annum in higher costs throughout the land? Have not the Government surrendered their authority to an agency outside the United Kingdom?
As Northern Ireland has no local authorities other than district councils, what will be the position of education boards and of housing associations that provide ancillary facilities for elderly residents in their complexes? Will they, too, have to pay VAT?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying that this is a complete routing. I have already said that we won on the crucial point of domestic housing. However, he is correct in saying that we have no option but to implement the ruling of the court, which is a consequence of the treaty obligations that we entered into in 1972 and the subsequent decisions taken in 1977 specifically affecting VAT.
In response to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), I said that the costs were very small—only £7,000 of out-house costs. We do not expect to have to bear the costs of the Commission, which usually expects to bear its own costs.
I believe that education boards and housing associations in Northern Ireland will be protected in the same way as are comparable authorities in this country. We will, of course, be consulting as to the precise definition which is appropriate within the ruling for residential property, and what will constitute residential property in that context, and that consultation will apply throughout the United Kingdom. I welcome comments from Northern Ireland as well as from elsewhere.

Sir Richard Body: Further to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), if we are to adhere to the principle of no taxation without representation, are we not now on the way to transferring the fiscal powers of the House to that supranational institution which the House, by statute, has elevated to a Parliament?

Mr. Lilley: The decision to transfer some powers of taxation to the European Community was taken much earlier. This is merely a consequence of it. No transfer of the House's powers to the Community can be made without the consent of the House. We have a veto in these matters.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Economic Secretary undertake to consult his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry as to the effect of the ruling, particularly in regard to VAT on new commercial and industrial construction, and on the level of investment forthcoming in the next few financial years in Britain? Does he agree that that will have a particularly harsh effect on regions of high unemployment such as Wales? Will he consult the Department of Trade and Industry and his Treasury colleagues about whether the level of investment will now drop because of the combined effect of this ruling increasing the cost of construction of new building, the national non-domestic rate in areas where it will increase such as my own constituency in Cardiff, plus the South American-style inflation in the building industry in the past year? If that has a devastating effect on the level of investment, will he agree to reconsider bringing in investment allowances to compensate for the effect of the EEC ruling and to preserve the level of investment?

Mr. Lilley: The level of activity in the construction industry in this country is extremely healthy; the industry is growing fast. We are determined that its prospects should be preserved, and that is why I have announced an extensive range of measures to protect its future. I believe that the industry will be able to continue growing well, nationally and in Wales. In particular, we have protected the position of the public sector.
The main burden of the extra tax which cannot be passed on or reclaimed from the Government will fall on industries such as the financial services sector, which is exempt from VAT and therefore cannot claim back VAT on the cost of inputs. That is an important industry, even in Wales, but it is not the principal industry in Wales, as it is in parts of England and Scotland.

Mr. Tim Smith: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said, is it not clear that the impact of this decision on the final consumer will be very limited, mainly because of the victory on private sector house construction? What will be the effect of the decision on the retail prices index?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is quite right. The effect of the decision on the man in the street will be negligible and unnoticeable. There will be no effect on his housing costs, and the effect on the retail prices index will be extremely small. When £160 million of extra tax is spread across the whole of consumer expenditure, it is a fraction of I per cent.

Mr. Bob Cryer: If the Minister is right and Parliament has a lingering power of veto, why


does he not invite Parliament to use that veto, and, instead of producing legislation imposed by the European court, why does he not produce legislation to repeal section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 which would place beyond any doubt the power of this Parliament to raise money and decide expenditure, instead of accepting the continuing drift and erosion of our powers so that this place becomes something like a parish council and the European Community strips away all our powers?

Mr. Lilley: It ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to talk about losing our lingering power of veto since he voted in favour of that measure when it was brought before the House in 1976.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: No, he did not.

Mr. Lilley: That was on 29 November 1976. Unlike the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who voted against the measure, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) voted in favour.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I warmly welcome the extended introductory period in applying these measures to charity. Is my hon. Friend aware that the judgment's consequences for charities are serious and that the annual expenditure on unrecoverable VAT of the 45 charity organisations which are members of the Charities VAT and Tax Reform Group will rise from £6·2 million a year to more than £12 million a year? Is my hon. Friend aware that the effect of this judgment on charities is the same as if my hon. Friend had announced an increase in the rate of VAT from 15 per cent. to 30 per cent.?

Mr. Lilley: I pay tribute to the role that my hon. Friend has played in voicing the concern of charities generally about the impact of VAT before this ruling. I recognise the important consequences for charities of that ruling. Naturally, we shall consult my hon. Friend, and the organisations which he represents, to ascertain how best to deal with the consequences of the ruling, within its scope and latitude.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Minister agree that if, in 1975, the British people thought that tax would be levied on public facilities, such as roads, railways and water, they might have given a different answer? Does he recall that the Prime Minister has made no statement on taxation of domestic water, which is in the next package which awaits the House? When the hon. Gentleman talks about a veto, will he correct himself and agree that, although the Government may have a veto under the treaty of Rome, at the moment the House has not?
To stop such problems arising in the future, would it not be better for the House to pass a motion saying that any future VAT package should be passed by an affirmative resolution of the House and not be entirely in Ministers' hands, even if it is in the Prime Minister's name? Is not such a provision entirely within the terms of the treaty of Rome, retaining those few powers that the House has left in that respect?

Mr. Lilley: None of today's rulings has any bearing on consumers. I do not think that if they had been known at the last election—I hope that I correctly interpret the hon. Gentleman's question——

Mr. Spearing: At the referendum.

Mr. Lilley: I do not think that if the rulings had been known at the referendum they would have had any impact on the outcome.
On the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Government and the House, I stand corrected. He is right. If any change were to be made, it would have to he made in the manner that he suggests; but it would not necessarily obtain a majority in the House.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend recall that, when the House agreed to the directive in 1977—without my support—a clear assurance was given in good faith that this kind of decision could not be made because we had residual powers under article 26 of the sixth directive, provided the Council of Ministers unanimously decided to abolish exemptions? As the assurances in this case and many others are being overturned and, basically, breached by the various institutions of the Community, can my hon. Friend, who has given a splendid answer today, give us an assurance that the Commission has said that it will not seek any more cases of this sort, or does my hon. Friend foresee the power of the House being slowly eroded, not by what we or the Common Market do but by the institutions taking more and more power and authority?

Mr. Lilley: Under the sixth directive, the British Government were entitled to maintain zero rating where it was for a clearly defined social purpose and for the benefit of the final consumer. The court has ruled that these specific items, on which we lost, were not for the benefit of the final consumer. The court merely made a legal judgment as to whether those items fell within the directive, to which the House assented with that caveat and definition in 1977. Any changes in exemptions from zero rates of VAT which are not made on that legal basis in conforming to the legislation can be made only by unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers and, therefore, with our consent. That applies to any wholesale changes that anyone might seek to make, including those proposed recently by Lord Cockfield.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The Economic Secretary dealt at length with non-domestic construction. How closely has he analysed the impact of that, and the decision to impose VAT on fuel and power supplies, on industry? Will he undertake to examine the matter to establish whether particular industries or areas will be affected by the extension, and will he introduce measures in mitigation similar to those that he has announced for non-domestic construction?

Mr. Lilley: The overall impact of VAT on fuel and power supplies for industry is comparatively small. The vast majority of industries affected will be able to reclaim the VAT that they pay as an input cost. Therefore, the decision will have no impact upon them except possibly a small cash-flow effect. The only major exceptions are the financial services industries, which will have to bear the cost of VAT on their fuel and power; they cannot reclaim it because they are exempt from VAT.

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): My hon. Friend said that the effect of the judgment on the consumer would be nil. Does he not agree that, given time, the judgment will ultimately affect the cost of land upon which non-domestic buildings were constructed? In that context, will he reconsider whether two years will be long enough,


given the length of the planning process? Similarly, will he have regard to the effect that the judgment may have on inner-city renewal—on mixed buildings, shops, offices, houses and flats?

Mr. Lilley: I think that I said that the effect on the consumer and the retail prices index would be minimal rather than nil. We acknowledge that there is likely to be a full year revenue in 1991–92, when the charges are fully operational, of £160 million, which will obviously have to be paid for by someone. To the extent that it affects consumer goods, it will be paid for by the consumer. To the extent that it comes out of profit margins, it will be paid for by investors and shareholders. To the extent that it comes out of land values, it will be paid for by landowners. A two-year phase-in period is perfectly reasonable. The industry did not ask us for any phase-in period; we have gratuitously offered the two-year period, which we think will be beneficial. The period for charities will be five years to give them longer to adjust.

Ms. Joyce Quin: Does the Minister agree that the court's judgment as it affects protective boots and helmets is unreasonable, especially as to the final consumer—the employee—the equipment is vital? Will he assure the House that safety in factories and other places of work will not be jeopardised as a result?

Mr. Lilley: I do not think that there is much point in criticising the reasonableness or otherwise of the judgment. It has been made and there is no appeal, and we have to try to implement it as sensitively as possible, using such discretion as remains to us. By and large, protective footwear and helmets are required by health and safety legislation. There will not be a fiscal penalty on employers who purchase them because they will be able to offset the purchase cost against VAT and reclaim it. It will not make a great deal of difference to them, although we should have preferred to have kept the original system.

Mr. John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is widespread feeling on both sides of the House that we have already surrendered too many powers and that we have gone too far in allowing the sovereignty of this House to be removed? Will he assure us that, unlike their predecessors, the Government do not plan to give away any more powers in negotiations on tax harmonisation?

Mr. Lilley: It is manifest from the response to my statement that the sentiments expressed in the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks are echoed on both sides of the House; that is a simple fact. I recognise that there is concern about these matters. We are certainly jealous of the powers of the House and, as regards the proposals on the table from Lord Cockfield, we have no intention of acceding to proposals that would restrict the right of the House to retain zero rates.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Minister made a clever debating point. He has been briefed well. Can he tell us how the Tory Opposition voted in 1977, when the matter came before the House? Before he tells me that I also voted for the measure that night, may I confirm that. Having reversed the results of every other vote cast during that Labour Government's period in office, why do not the

Government reverse that vote as well? I assure the Minister that he has my full permission to reverse that vote, and I shall help him to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) made a specific point about safety helmets and footwear. Will the Minister give us an absolute assurance that the Government will watch developments carefully and that no damage will be done to health and safety at work? The Minister speaks eloquently about the construction industry, but some of us have a greater feeling for those who work in the industry than for those who own it.

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his compliments on the quality of my briefing and his revelations about the inconsistency of his voting habits. The Government are not in the habit of standing on their heads that frequently and we do not intend to do so on this occasion.
The hon. Gentleman asked about how the then Opposition voted in 1977. From my examination of the records, they appear largely to have abstained.
I shall take up the hon. Gentleman's point about the health and safety implications of the protective clothing and helmets item and we shall make sure that health and safety objectives are not undermined.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Minister confirm that the permitted derogations for zero rating are not time-limited in any way? Will he also confirm that there will be no more court cases and that the unfortunate legacy of the last Labour Government is finally behind us?

Mr. Lilley: As far as we know, the Commission has no further disagreements with the existing structure of zero rates in this country. The Commission has clearly brought forth in this case all the aspects of the present structure with which it disagrees on legal grounds. My hon. Friend asked about the durability of our zero rates. As long as we insist on the retention of zero rating for exports, we can retain zero rates domestically as well. We have no intention of conceding that point while we wish, as we do, to keep the right to retain zero rates.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: The Minister alluded to the Labour Government's bringing in VAT. Does he not agree that it was a Tory Government who almost doubled it and that the recent Budget made matters substantially easier for the rich? In face of his difficulties, would it not be a good idea to recommend to the Chancellor that in his next Budget he cuts the rate of VAT substantially? He should restore high income tax for those in the higher income bracket and substantially cut consumer taxation which affects the poor.

Mr. Lilley: One thing that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary did when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1979 was to simplify the system so that we had just one positive rate of VAT instead of two rates of VAT and the multiple rates of purchase tax that we had prior to that. I am determined that we should not go back to a multiple-rate system of VAT. Whenever I think of it, I almost feel the shade of Sir Gerald Nabarro hovering over the House and imagine him raising all the absurdities that arise from multiple rates of indirect taxation. I entirely reject the proposal of the Labour Front Bench


spokesman, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), that we should have a lower rate of VAT alongside the present rate. I do not think that that would be helpful.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that, regardless of the merits of the arguments about migration of powers, it would be far simpler to have VAT on everything at a lower rate than 15 per cent., and thus do away with all the contradictions and anomalies?

Mr. Lilley: That might have a brutal simplicity, but it is not a policy that appeals to the British Government.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Does the Minister recall the manifesto of the Government in office at the time of the referendum, which said that no new tax would be levied on the British people without the support of British Ministers and the British Parliament? Is he not humiliated that this Parliament is being robbed of its powers over taxation? As that comes on top of Common Market interference with the Government's industrial policy in relation to the Rover Group, should we not increasingly seek the repeal of section 2 of the European Communities Act to bring those powers back to the House?

Mr. Lilley: It was the Labour Government who in 1975 held the referendum and gave the assurances. It was the same Labour Government who in 1977 gave their permission to the sixth directive under which this court case was heard. They fulfilled the claim that there can be no changes to the tax system without the assent of the British Government, but they then gave that assent.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that the ruling shows that the British Government achieved a considerable success in winning their case for the exclusion of domestic housing construction, particularly as I understand that VAT rates are applied to that sector in other continental countries? Will my hon. Friend confirm that no VAT will be levied on private individuals for fuel and power? Will he also note that the judgment seems to comment favourably on the principle of zero rating, which is this Government's policy?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. He is right to point out that domestic heating was the big and potentially painful item had we lost this case. I never doubted that we would win it. The position is now clear and the whole House and country will be relieved to know that on that issue we won. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the European Commission never sought to impose VAT on fuel and power for individuals. He is also right in saying that during the case the European Commission accepted Britain's right to have zero rates and did not contest that right. The court seemed to endorse it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: If the Minister wants to complete the history lesson, why does he not refer to the fact that on 28 October 1971 it was a Tory Government, supported by the present Prime Minister, who dragged an unwilling Britain into the Common Market, along with such allies as Lord Jenkins, Shirley Poppins and the rest of them? Is he aware that some of us fought against that decision, which turned out to be an unmitigated disaster, and that in 1977 the Labour Government, bogged down with the Lib-Lab pact, went along with it? If the Minister wants to take the history lesson a bit further, it is no use rabbiting on about vetoes and all the other technicalities.

The truth is that the only way to stop this happening is to get out of the Common Market and prevent this bureaucracy, this bankrupt Common Market—£5 billion in the red once again and wanting another £900 million loan from the British people this autumn—from running our lives.

Mr. Lilley: I admire the hon. Gentleman, first, for his consistency and, secondly, for his willingness to criticise the Labour Government. I think that we can learn from both aspects.

Mr. Michael Latham: Can we please not have any talk about this decision being welcomed by the construction industry? The industry will be appalled by the rate of 15 per cent. Why has my hon. Friend agreed to impose VAT on contracts as from tonight, although that provision is to be included in a Bill that will not be introduced until next year? That was not done with beer, and there is no possible justification for it.

Mr. Lilley: I certainly did not suggest that the construction industry would welcome the ruling. I suggested only that it would welcome the decisions that we have taken to mitigate the impact of the ruling. The industry made mild allusions to the possibility of a lower rate, but only as an alternative to the option to tax, which was the first preference and the one for which we have opted.

Mr. Latham: But why impose it as from tonight?

Mr. Lilley: If we had not made it clear that contracts entered into before tonight are zero rated and that those after tonight by implication will not be, there would have been a tremendous incentive for people to bring forward contracts and there would have been a boom and bust in the construction industry.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: So what?

Mr. Lilley: The construction industry was very anxious to avoid the possibility of a boom and bust because of people rushing to complete contracts ahead of the next Budget or introducing new contracts ahead of the next Budget. We listened very carefully to the industry and introduced this provision at its request.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Minister confirm that all other countries run more than a single rate of VAT and that it would be possible for the Government to introduce a lower band of VAT? Is he saying that the Commission's proposals for the single market will be vetoed all along the line and all the time? Does he not believe that it would be far better if charities were given a complete derogation of VAT? The only reason for that not being done is that the Government do not want to do it rather than because there is a legal impediment to that process being undertaken.

Mr. Lilley: It is true that virtually all our partners in the Common Market have more than one positive rate of VAT. However, we consider that our system is simpler and more desirable. Also, it has a social benefit, in that certain supplies that are more likely to be consumed by those who are on low incomes tend to be zero rated. It is not, therefore, a regressive tax.
We shall not assent to Lord Cockfield's proposals on tax approximation because we do not approve of them. There is no question of having to introduce a veto because


the proposals have failed to gain the support of other countries. They have been extremely widely criticised by other member states, many of whom have a range of difficulties over them. There is certainly no question of the Government vetoing the proposals on some occasions but not on others.

Mr. Ian Gow: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite the assurances that he has given that the Commission is now well satisfied with our system of value added tax, following the decision of the European court, Treasury Ministers will come to the Dispatch Box again and again over the coming months and tell the House that VAT is to be altered or extended in a way that is not approved of by Her Majesty's Government?
Is my hon. Friend further aware of the inconsistency of his statement? He said, first, that we are required to implement the judgment of the European court, and, secondly, that that implementation requires the approval of the House. There can be no requirement to implement if there is also the right of this House to reject what the Government propose.

Mr. Lilley: I am sure that I did not express a view about the European Commission's mental state about our zero rates. I have no idea about its internal state of satisfaction with them. We are well satisfied with the present tax structure and we intend to retain it. Proposals for change may emanate from a variety of spheres, but they will always remain proposals unless they have the assent and the consent of this Government and this House. Under the European treaty to which we gave our consent—some willingly and some unwillingly—in the early 1970s, this House must consent to legal measures that are agreed to by the combined countries of the European Community. If the House failed to do so, there would be a constitutional impasse, the consequences of which would be very serious.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister confirm that when we accepted the sixth directive in 1977 we were assured that it precluded changes in zero rating without the unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers? Will he accept that this is a change of what is loosely called the Commission's mind? That change has been ratified by the European court, which is essentially just an instrument of European unity. Will the Minister confirm that we can throw out the legislation without it coming into force under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972? If that is so, why does he not give hon. Members a free vote so that he can test how his hon. Friends feel about this grovelling abdication of Britain's rights?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Member must take up with the Ministers who were concerned with the matter in 1977 any assurances that they gave in respect of the sixth directive. However, it has always been the case that it is only possible for us to introduce zero rates under that directive that conform to the criteria that they are for clearly defined social purposes and for the benefit of the final consumer. It is solely on their alleged failure to fulfil those criteria that the European Commission was able to take this country to court and, in some respects, win its case. In others it lost. It was unable to alter the law of the land or of the Community unilaterally, and any changes in the law

will require the Government's consent and that of Parliament. It has always been the case in this country that laws emanating from this place must be interpreted as is appropriate by courts when there is any dispute as to their meaning.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: In view of the Minister's comments about the effect of this measure on the financial services industry, was it correct for him to say that there will be no effect on housing costs? Is it not likely that banks, insurance companies and building societies will pass on their VAT commitments on the supply of gas, electricity and water, which will result in at least marginal increases in borrowing costs for those of us who are buying our houses on mortgages?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct and there could be a few arithmetically detectable implications of the kind he suggests. I do not believe that they would be detectable by the consumer because they would be so small as not to be measurable against all the other changes. The total revenue collected as a result of this measure, when it is fully implemented, is likely to be about £160 million per year. When that sum is spread over all the industries which will bear it, the overall effect will be very small, and it will not seriously alter the cost of housing or anything else.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us have a genuine personal respect for the fact that he has made for our country the best that he can out of a very difficult situation? However, we keep on being told that we are jealous of our powers, but in the next breath we are told that we must consent to this, that and the other. As the country is now being run, week after week, another regulation is brought before the House and hon. Members are told that there is nothing they can do about it. Ultimately, Parliament must decide who runs the country. Are we to be the United Kingdom or are we, by stealth and by the death of a thousand regulations, to become the "United States of Europe", which is something for which this country should not and will not vote?

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. I agree that there is an excessive passion in some quarters of the Community to introduce harmonisation measures that are not always necessary and to pursue legalistic points which make no effective change to the amount of tax which people bear but merely alter the name by which it is known and from whose pockets it comes and to which it is then returned. We deplore such unnecessary changes, but they are the consequence of our adherence to the treaty of Rome. Unless my hon. Friend is suggesting that we should resile from that treaty, we must accept those consequences, while arguing with the Commission that it should not pursue too vigorously unnecessary harmonisation measures.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Does not my hon. Friend deprecate the fact that, as fast as the Chancellor simplifies and reduces taxes, the Community appears to frustrate his efforts?

Mr. Lilley: I am not sure that this measure vastly complicates matters, although it creates a certain amount of tax churning, which is to no one's great benefit. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's basic point that it is far more important to simplify and reduce taxes than it is to


harmonise items for which there is no international trade. After all, I do not imagine that many people export houses or buildings from this country, or that enormous distortion was introduced by our having a different system previously for taxing protective helmets from that which applied on the continent.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Is my hon. Friend telling the House that a problem arises as a result of the Labour Government failing in 1977 to understand the implications of their own legislation, or that it is a consequence of the European Commission subsequently changing its grounds in a way that could not be foreseen? If the latter is true, that is certainly a matter of constitutional importance. If the former, what other problems remain unresolved in this area as a result of the Labour party's inability to understand its own policy?

Mr. Lilley: It is always possible, with the benefit of hindsight, to have 20/20 vision. However, at the time it could have been foreseen that some cases might be brought under those aspects of the legislation specifically stating that any zero rating had to be in respect of a clearer defined social need and for the benefit of the final consumer. It might not necessarily have been possible to predict absolutely the court's ruling on all the items, but to avoid the possibility of any such court cases it would have been necessary at that earlier stage to have agreed to a wider permission in the sixth directive than that to which we assented.

Mr. John Watts: While undertakings entered into by a former Labour Government may oblige the present Government to seek the House's consent to extending VAT in accordance with the judgment, can my hon. Friend confirm that there is nothing in the judgment requiring us to apply VAT at the current standard rate? Could we not comply with the letter of the judgment by introducing a rate of 0·00001 per cent.? In this instance, are not the merits of the simplicity of a single rate system outweighed by the importance of the House insisting that its will to maintain zero rating as near as possible shall prevail?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct, in that the court has not ruled that we must apply the standard rate. It is up to us to choose, but the law applies a constraint in respect of which low rate will apply. It is stated in the directive that the low rate must be sufficient to cover all the VAT likely to be reclaimed on the inputs into the industry to which that low rate applies. It is difficult to calculate what the lowest rate could be, but I recently saw a study by Arthur Andersen and Co. suggesting that the lowest rate we could apply in those circumstances would he as high as 10 per cent. We see little advantage in having a second tier rate of 10 per cent. alongside one of 15 per cent. That would cause difficulties for business and industry, as well as boundary problems.

Mr. Barry Field: Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern there is in private industry and commerce at the inability to recover VAT, particularly among service industries, and the considerable privilege that local government enjoys in being able to recover VAT? Are not the concessions that my hon. Friend has announced this afternoon another example of the Treasury erecting a fence of privilege around local government and public enterprise to the detriment of

private enterprise, which completely contradicts the Government's policy of privatising local government services?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct, and those who are exempt from VAT often regret that they are unable to reclaim the tax on their inputs—though they probably welcome the fact that they do not have to pay the tax on their outputs. Local government has long enjoyed exemption. Many years ago an assurance was given that services financed from the rates would be reimbursed their VAT. That continues, and it automatically applies to the measures announced today. We have not given local authorities any special new privilege but have merely taken advantage of an existing one.

Mr. Tony Marlow: The Government are proud, and quite rightly so, that they have made life simpler for business and industry, but what my hon. Friend has announced today is a bureaucratic nightmare. My hon. Friend says that it is a small one, but it is a bureaucratic nightmare none the less. The only businesses that will benefit from it are the legal and accountancy professions. My hon. Friend is also a democrat, and he knows that right hon. and hon. Members will vote for what they feel is correct.
Can my hon. Friend expand on the answer he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen)? What happens if the House votes down a Government proposal on VAT? Will we all be clapped in irons by the European court? What will happen about the tax? Will it be applied or will it not be applied? Is the House sovereign or is it not sovereign? The House ought to know.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend goes a little far in describing this measure as a bureaucratic nightmare. It extends the VAT system—which has its complexities, but which in other ways is a simple, structural tax—to an area where it did not apply before, or where it did not apply in full. We have introduced a number of transitional measures, which always creates a certain amount of complication. However, it will be possible for industry, by and large, to cope. It would certainly prefer the kind of measures that I have announced to automatically proceeding without the measures of transition and mitigation that I have announced.
As to the constitutional consequences of the hypothetical circumstances in which the House should vote against a fiscal measure required of us by the European court, the whole House must be aware that such action would create a constitutional impasse. I may be a democrat but I am not a lawyer, so I cannot elaborate. If I did so, you, Mr. Speaker, would rule me out of order.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is now genuine confusion because it is only during the last two or three questions and answers that it has become apparent that legislation is to be introduced into the House to back up the Economic Secretary's statement. In certain circumstances under the treaty of Rome all that is required is the Government's agreement and not that of the House. All I am asking is that it should be reinforced that legislation is to he introduced into the House and that it will be a House of Commons matter rather than purely a Government matter.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I can help the House. I listened carefully to the statement and I understood the Minister to say that new clauses would be introduced in the Finance Bill next year.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was out of the Chamber during the later exchanges on the statement because I went to obtain a copy of the Customs and Excise document. It is not the fault of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, but the document was not available in the Vote Office until 4.22 pm whereas the Minister implied that it was available while he was speaking or would be available when he had concluded his statement.
On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you again guide and help the House? You may agree with me and other hon. Members that during education questions and Prime Minister's questions, and now during the statement, although the subjects are important, the questions and answers have been of exceptional length. Is not that a growing tendency that is preventing other hon. Members from asking their questions? I think that on this occasion I speak with the moral authority of someone who was not seeking to catch your eye.

Mr. Speaker: I judged the statement to be of such importance that every hon. Member who wished to ask a question should be called and I did not curtail proceedings in any way. I cannot always promise to do that.

Mr. Biffen: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), Mr. Speaker. I believe that what is promised for the Finance Bill next year is probably a pioneer in these experiences where the House is invited to validate a judgment of the European court. The point that I had in mind was not necessarily that it should be rejected, but that the House should make amendments, the House being satisfied that those amendments were within the spirit of the European court's ruling.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker—obviously not now, but at some future moment, although the earlier this is resolved the better for the House—on how it is determined whether an amendment that is put down is within the spirit of the court's judgment and whether the House is entitled to take a view that that decision is consistent with the court's judgment without merely accepting the say-so of the Treasury Bench. May I leave the matter there, Mr. Speaker? It is a matter of substance for the House that should be resolved and adjudicated earlier rather than later.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure whether I can help. All I can say is that I shall consider carefully what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Latham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. According to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, the potentiality of the tax will be imposed on contracts signed after midnight tonight. Are we to assume that there will be no Ways and Means resolution, or any other vote of the House, before next year's Finance Bill Committee?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer such a question.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should have asked the Economic Secretary these questions when he was in a position to answer them. I am afraid that I cannot do so.

Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a procedural matter, if not for you, perhaps you could tell us for whom, because it cannot be for the Minister. Following the point made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), if the Minister is to try to impose a tax from midnight tonight, surely there must be either a constitutional provision or a Standing Order, which we have for the Finance Bill and the Budget resolutions, as I recall, which gives power for such executive action to be taken in advance of legislation.
The question that arises from the exchanges—not the Minister's statement—is what sort of constitutional mechanism exists, or what Standing Order there is in the House, which permits that executive action to be taken consequential to a European court judgment rather than consequential to a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he opens his Budget. I think that that is the point.

Mr. Speaker: The House heard what the Economic Secretary said. I think that he said that new clauses were to be circulated to obtain the opinion of the House on this matter. I do not think that I can answer that question.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What we are asking is by what authority is taxation raised. The Treasury Bench tells us that the authority will come forward next year by amendment to the Finance Bill. We should like to know by what authority a tax is raised as of midnight tonight.

Mr. Speaker: These are all questions that should have been put to the Minister rather than to the Chair. This is not a matter of order.

Mr. Skinner: I think that your last remark, Mr. Speaker, was correct. You have been placed in some difficulty because one would have thought that by this time the Minister responsible, or his mate on the Front Bench, would have jumped to the Dispatch Box to remind the House how the Government will get over the 12-month period between the potentiality of taxes being raised from tonight and permission being granted by this sovereign House next year. If you will just cast your eye round the corner, Mr. Speaker—I know that you do not want to —there is a fellow there with a bit of paper in his hand who is anxious to tell the Minister something. He has now put that paper below the parapet. He has the answer that the Minister wants but he does not know how to get it to him and the Parliamentary Private Secretary has not been looking over there.

Mr. Speaker: We had better move on.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the five motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft British Waterways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1988, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.


That the draft Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1988, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Agriculture Improvement (Amendment) Regulations 1988, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Agriculture Improvement (Variation) Scheme 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 1056), be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. —[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Several hon. Members have approached me because they have received a writ that has been served on every Member of the House of Commons and upon every Member of the other place from a litigant in Sheffield's High Court. I have been in contact with the High Court in Sheffield and I am informed that the writ is genuine and that we shall all receive a copy of it. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how we should deal with the matter.

Mr. Speaker: As far as I know, I do not appear on the writ.

Mr. Hind: You do.

Mr. Speaker: My copy must have gone astray then. The hon. Gentleman had better let me look into the matter.

British Identity Card

Mr. Tony Favell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a British identity card; and for other purposes.
With the British passport due to disappear in 1992, the time has come for us to introduce a British identity card and I intend that it be British passport blue. There can be few people who are not asked to supply proof of identity from time to time and many are regularly obliged to do so. These days we cannot enter most clubs, as well as many places of work and Government buildings, without having to identify ourselves. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to cash a cheque without a cheque card.
The identity card that I propose will be issued to everyone over 18 years of age. It will be the size of a credit card and will contain the holder's photograph, his or her name and address, date of birth and signature. It will be computer readable which will minimise fraud.
An identity card of the type that I propose will help in the battle against football hooliganism. It will enable immigration authorities to identify hooligans upon whom I hope the courts will soon be able to impose travel restrictions. It will assist football clubs in identifying those whom they wish to ban from their grounds. It will also help in the fight against terrorism and crime in general.
One of the problems in identifying the IRA is that its members are free to enter Britain from the Republic of Ireland without a passport or, indeed, any form of identification. After a terrorist attack such as the appalling atrocity at Lisburn last week, it would greatly assist the security forces if those manning road blocks could readily ascertain whether people had come from far afield or were merely going about their normal day-to-day business.
Some of the nastiest crimes today are those inflicted on the elderly. It is now commonplace to read in the newspapers of crooks and thugs worming their way into old people's homes, often posing as gas men, meter readers or council officials. An instantly recognisable identity card from which details could be taken before admittance would help to deter those who prey on the most susceptible members of our society.
I recognise the fear that an identity card system could be seen as an intrusion on the privacy of the individual. An important part of my Bill will limit the information included on the card and limit those who will have access to that information. Clearly, the Revenue and the DHSS will be able to insist on its production to help eliminate fraud, the police will be able to ask for it when a crime has been committed or is anticipated and immigration authorities will be entitled to inspect it. That will help in the fight against terrorism and should eliminate the need for passports to travel to other countries in Europe.
It will be up to the holder to decide whether to show the card to private individuals. If he does not, the person asking to see it will be able to draw his own conclusions, in the absence of a reasonable explanation.
I know that some will oppose the introduction of an identity card on the ground that it will infringe civil liberties. But the liberty of law-abiding citizens in Northern Ireland is already infringed by terrorists, the liberty of the elderly is infringed by bogus officials and the


liberty of decent football fans to watch a football match free from violence and obscene gestures should be maintained.
My Bill will be of great benefit to honest, law-abiding citizens, which most British people are, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. David Winnick: I oppose the measure which the hon. Member seeks to introduce. The introduction of identity cards is a wholly undesirable practice, far more associated with dictatorships than with democracies, except in wartime. There are, of course, various kinds of documentation relating to national insurance, health services, and so on, which are for specific reasons. However, such documents do not have to be carried on a daily basis, and one can be pretty certain that once an identity card is necessary it will be a requirement that the citizen carry it around with him on all occasions; he will be so required by the police. As I have said, the practice has far more in common with Eastern Europe than with Western-type democracy.
This is part of an authoritarian tendency in the Conservative party to try to control the lives of citizens as much as possible and have records on everybody in the country. I suppose that it is not surprising that a party which showed no concern and made no protest when Cathy Massiter exposed what was happening in the security services, when people were being questioned, had files drawn up on them and had their telephones tapped, should want to continue down a road that is completely undemocratic.
It is nonsense, as the hon. Member knows full well, to say that the issuing of identity cards will stop the football hooligans who are such a disgrace to our country, or stop crooks entering the homes of elderly people. The hon. Gentleman is certainly misleading the House when he makes such remarks.
I believe that this country requires less documentation and less control over the citizen. That is why I believe that acceptance of the hon. Gentleman's proposal for an identity card in peacetime would be a retrograde step. Tory Members who vote for the Bill—there will be no Opposition Members—will show clearly that they want to continue down the road of further controls on the private citizen. We have said that it is the Conservative party, not the Labour Opposition, which is so keen on Eastern Europe practices and the hon. Gentleman, by his Bill, make our point very well indeed.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motion for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 172.

Division No. 369]
[4.44 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bendall, Vivian


Aitken, Jonathan
Benyon, W.


Alexander, Richard
Bevan, David Gilroy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boswell, Tim


Ashby, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Aspinwall, Jack
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Atkinson, David
Brazier, Julian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bright, Graham


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)





Browne, John (Winchester)
Knapman, Roger


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Budgen, Nicholas
McCrindle, Robert


Butler, Chris
McCusker, Harold


Butterfill, John
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Marland, Paul


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Marlow, Tony


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Colvin, Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Curry, David
Mates, Michael


Day, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Devlin, Tim
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dicks, Terry
Mills, Iain


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Evennett, David
Morrison, Sir Charles


Favell, Tony
Moss, Malcolm


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mudd, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Forth, Eric
Page, Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Paice, James


Franks, Cecil
Patnick, Irvine


Fry, Peter
Pawsey, James


Gale, Roger
Price, Sir David


Gardiner, George
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Gill, Christopher
Rost, Peter


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Sackville, Hon Tom


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Sayeed, Jonathan


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Sims, Roger


Gregory, Conal
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Grylls, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Steen, Anthony


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Haselhurst, Alan
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Thornton, Malcolm


Hill, James
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Holt, Richard
Watts, John


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Whitney, Ray


Howells, Geraint
Widdecombe, Ann


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Wilkinson, John


Hunter, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Irvine, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Janman, Tim



Jessel, Toby
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Mr. John Townend and Mr. Jacques Arnold.


Kilfedder, James





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Allen, Graham
Clay, Bob


Alton, David
Clelland, David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Armstrong, Hilary
Coleman, Donald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Crowther, Stan


Battle, John
Cryer, Bob


Beckett, Margaret
Cummings, John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bidwell, Sydney
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Blair, Tony
Dixon, Don


Body, Sir Richard
Doran, Frank


Bradley, Keith
Douglas, Dick


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dover, Den


Buchan, Norman
Duffy, A. E. P.


Buckley, George J.
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Caborn, Richard
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Callaghan, Jim
Eadie, Alexander


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Eastham, Ken


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Canavan, Dennis
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Carlile, Alex (Monfg)
Fatchett, Derek


Cartwright, John
Fearn, Ronald






Fields, Terry (L'pool B n)
Michael, Alun


Fisher, Mark
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flannery, Martin
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Flynn, Paul
Morley, Elliott


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foulkes, George
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


French, Douglas
Mullin, Chris


Galbraith, Sam
Nellist, Dave


Galloway, George
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
O'Brien, William


George, Bruce
O'Neill, Martin


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Parry, Robert


Golding, Mrs Llin
Patchett, Terry


Gordon, Mildred
Pike, Peter L.


Gould, Bryan
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Graham, Thomas
Primarolo, Dawn


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Radice, Giles


Grocott, Bruce
Randall, Stuart


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Redmond, Martin


Haynes, Frank
Redwood, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Reid, Dr John


Henderson, Doug
Richardson, Jo


Hinchliffe, David
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Ruddock, Joan


Hood, Jimmy
Salmond, Alex


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hoyle, Doug
Short, Clare


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Smith, C. (IsI'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Illsley, Eric
Soley, Clive


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Steinberg, Gerry


Kirkwood, Archy
Stott, Roger


Lambie, David
Strang, Gavin


Lamond, James
Straw, Jack


Leadbitter, Ted
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Leighton, Ron
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Turner, Dennis


Lewis, Terry
Wall, Pat


Litherland, Robert
Wallace, James


Livsey, Richard
Walley, Joan


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McAllion, John
Wareing, Robert N.


McCartney, Ian
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McFall, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McKelvey, William
Wigley, Dafydd


McLeish, Henry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McTaggart, Bob
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McWilliam, John
Wilson, Brian


Madden, Max
Winnick, David


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Worthington, Tony


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wray, Jimmy


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Martlew, Eric



Maxton, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Meacher, Michael
Dr. Lewis Moonie and Mrs. Maria Fyfe.


Meale, Alan

Question accordingly negatived.

Higher Education Diplomas

Motion made and Question proposed,
That this House take note of European Community Documents Nos. 8242/85 and 6944/86 and the supplementary explanatory memorandum of 22nd April 1988 submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on higher education diplomas; and supports the Government's intention to work for the early adoption of a Directive which reflects the United Kingdom system of professional training and regulation and facilitates freedom of movement for professions within the European Community as an essential element of a single Community market.;'[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that a manuscript amendment to the motion has been tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). The hon. Gentleman was fully entitled to do that. There is provision for such an amendment to be decided upon, without debate, under the Standing Order. I have given careful consideration to the amendment, but I have decided not to select it.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for the information which you have given to the House. Can you confirm that the document was discussed in Committee only this morning and reported to the Table only an hour or so ago, thus making it difficult for any hon. Member such as myself who attended to place formally on the Order Paper an amendment which would normally have appeared tomorrow? I take it that you would feel that, although the procedure is in order, it is not only unusual but in its haste deprives hon. Members and the public from seeing what the Government are up to.
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to confirm that under Standing Order 102 it is possible for the motion to be separate from the motion in Committee, that it is amendable, and that in selecting amendments you will maintain the precedent set by Mr. Speaker Lloyd in 1974 in respect of amendments to Common Market motions?

Mr. Speaker: I accept that this is an unusual procedure. I agree with the hon. Member that normally the House should have time to consider motions that are on the Order Paper and have an opportunity to amend them when it is legitimate to do so. I cannot give reasons to the hon. Member or to the House for my non-selection today, but I will be pleased to see the hon. Member privately.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister explain the indecent haste and why he did not put the motion down for tomorrow?
May I put a point to you, Mr. Speaker? As we have seen earlier today, more and more legislation which affects our affairs is originating in the EEC. Are you convinced that the scrutiny procedures of the House are adequate? I doubt whether they are. May I ask you to consider this privately and come back to me with your view?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot ask the Minister to give an explanation to that because the Standing Order requires me to put the Question forthwith, as I have already done. I have every confidence in the Select Committee on European Legislation and its Chairman. What has been done today is in order.

Orders of the Day — School Boards (Scotland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

EXPENDITURE ON ESTABLISHMENT AND SUPPORT OF SCHOOL BOARDS

`The identification and monitoring of the additional expenditure reasonably required for the establishment and continuing support of school boards will be the subject of separate and ongoing consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. —[Mr. Norman Hogg.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5 pm

Mr. Norman Hogg: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I expect that the speeches by Opposition Front Bench Members today will be brief, but that will not understate the case that we shall make on a number of important matters that we considered in Committee, not least the question of expenditure, which exercised the Committee to some extent because of the considerable difference of opinion between the Under-Secretary of State and Opposition Members.
New clause 1 is a direct consequence of our debate in Committee. It would ensure that extra expenditure required for boards would be subject to separate and ongoing consultation with COSLA. That appears to be appropriate, because COSLA is the recognised body which speaks for Scottish local government and is the collective voice of Scotland's education authorities, as has been recognised for some time. I and my hon. Friends believe that COSLA is best able to undertake separate and continuing identification and monitoring of additional expenditure reasonably required for school boards.
The financial memorandum to the Bill states that the cost is likely to be very small. The Minister went so far as to say that even that cost would be offset by savings arising from the abolition of schools councils. I do not wish to rehearse all the arguments made in Committee, but the information that is now to hand amply demonstrates that the Minister's view on that matter is erroneous and his estimate that school boards will cost the Exchequer and, ultimately, local authorities some £5 million is wrong.
The Minister rejected all the well-documented arguments advanced by Dumfries and Galloway regional council. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) here, because, in Committee, he eloquently argued the Dumfries and Galloway case that the cost of school boards to that authority would be some £600,000 which, in terms of the whole of Scotland, would mean a cost of some £20 million.
The Minister did not accept that case. He argued that Dumfries and Galloway regional council was overstating costs such as travelling expenses and suggested that there were unjustifiable extra staff costs. However, from the information now to hand, it appears to be the Minister who has misunderstood the situation and is understating the costs in every area of the boards' anticipated activities.
What COSLA is now saying appears to destroy the arguments advanced by the Minister in Committee. First,

COSLA estimates that the outturn cost of running schools councils is £700,000. Secondly, it makes its assessment of the full costs of the boards in much detail and on clearly defined assumptions. For instance, it assumes that extra functions will not be delegated by the authorities to the boards. It says that it has proceeded on the basis of the cost of the boards' activities alone; in other words, minimum costs.
It is also assumed that board members will claim travel allowances on the basis of 21·3p per mile, which is the rate prescribed under section 46 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. That expenditure was specifically endorsed by the Minister in Committee. The total estimate, including the costs of staffing and financial information support, elections, training, staff replacement, advertising and janitorial overtime adds up to approximately £17·2 million or £5,682 per school.
If the Minister tells us that COSLA has got its figures wrong, he will have to be every bit as specific as COSLA has been in arriving at the figures that I have put to the House. It will not be good enough just to rely on the arguments that the Minister arrayed in Committee. He will have to do considerably better than that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The hon. Gentleman will recall that, in Committee, we discussed the estimate produced by Dumfries and Galloway regional council. Does he acknowledge that COSLA, in carrying out its further estimate, has taken into account and accepted many of my criticisms of the estimates made by Dumfries and Galloway?

Mr. Hogg: I am receiving all sorts of advice from my hon. Friends, but I shall not engage in an argument with the Minister over that point. I accept some of what he says, but, none the less, we have before us a detailed statement from COSLA, dated 16 June 1988, which was circulated to all Scottish Members. If the Minister responds to the question of whose figures are right, he will have to challenge the basis on which COSLA has arrived at its figures.
I have considered carefully what COSLA has said about delegated functions, school board meetings, committee meetings and appointment of committees, as well as about the general support required for the operation of those committees and have concluded that it has been conservative in its considerations. It has not overstated its case. It relies on the experience of its officials and of the education authority officials in Scotland. When we take that into account, we must conclude that COSLA is making a reasonable estimate of the costs.
It is important that the people of Scotland should know that they are being asked to find additional expenditure from the education budget of some £17·2 million. They never sought to have that expenditure imposed on them, because they never made any demand for the kind of school boards that the Minister proposes. I conclude, therefore, that it is unreasonable expenditure which we should not be making. I would not choose to spend £17·2 million in that way, but would direct my attention to other education priorities.
I realise that the Minister does not accept my figure of £17·2 million and is instead persuaded that the school boards will cost considerably less. [Interruption] My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) says that


the Minister will tell us exactly why. I hope that he does and I am looking forward to his speeches. I listened to them attentively in Committee. Some were better than others. Some fell away in the middle and others ended rather dramatically. He even ended them occasionally by saying that he would go away and look at a matter. It is too late to look at this particular item and I hope that he will tell me that new clause 1 is so reasonable and appropriate, in that it places a responsibility on COSLA as the correct and appropriate body to do the job that we envisage for Scottish local government, that it is the right and proper course for him to accept it. I am confident that he will do so.

Mr. Allan Stewart: It will probably alarm the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) to hear me say that I have a great deal of sympathy with some of the points that he made. We have all received from COSLA the figures about which he spoke. I have some comments to make about those figures, but as I do not have the expertise that is available to my hon. Friend the Minister, it is preferable to listen to what he has to say. However, one point that I shall put to him is that there is a slightly different but acceptable method of meeting the concern of COSLA. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth was right to say that the Bill puts new duties on Scottish local authorities for which the authorities have not asked. Therefore, there is a strong case for considering a specific grant for this expenditure.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Minister did not accept the proposition of a specific grant on the ground that in general terms COSLA has been opposed to that in the past. That is true and there is a general argument that specific grants limit a local authority's discretion in allocating total expenditure to different heads. However, a specific duty is being placed on education authorities and much of the expenditure is not at their discretion. Some matters are at their discretion, such as the number of representatives that they send to meetings, but much of the other expenditure—for example, on elections, and the number of meetings of school councils—is in a sense demand-led and not under the control of the education authority. Because there is a specific statutory duty and because much of the expenditure is not under the control of the local authority, there is in principle a strong case for making this expenditure the subject of specific grant. I appreciate the arguments that my hon. Friend the Minister put against that in Committee, but I hope that he will reconsider.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: While I do not think that the new clause is entirely felicitously worded, its contention is valid. I hope that the Minister will not be drawn into an argument about what the costs are likely to be because I think we can all agree that whatever they are they will be additional to any costs that are currently incurred. An argument about how exactly they will turn out is not important. It is important that the Minister is introducing legislation that will increase costs to local authorities that are already stretched in this area.
The Minister is entitled to say that his ideology allows him to introduce the Bill and that Parliament should vote on it. Most local authorities will be bitterly resentful, and rightly so, if they are told afterwards that they have to find the money out of their general pool to pay for the Minister's ideology. They will be subject to threats of rate

capping or cuts in the rate support grant if they are unable to contain themselves within budget. It would be appropriate if the consultation were about securing proper and adequate funding.
The Government are in an extraordinary position. In the last two years they have introduced two pieces of legislation specifically for Scotland and have stomped the country preaching about the need for local authorities to cut their functions, interventions, costs and expenditure. Yet the Government have introduced two of the most expensive pieces of legislation that any local authority has ever had to face. One is the introduction of school boards involving thousands of new people who will have to be serviced. The Bill provides for that servicing.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman against school boards?

Mr. Bruce: That is an extraordinary intervention. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I would be in favour of school boards if they were a partnership. [Interruption] The Minister should allow me to finish. I would be in favour of school boards and the powers presented in the Bill if they were introduced in a spirit of partnership between parents, teachers and pupils. I am not in favour of school boards in which parents have a majority that they did not seek and do not want. I shall speak about that later. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) would serve his electors better if he was prepared to represent that view which, as he knows, is the view of parents in his constituency.
The Minister is entitled to introduce a Bill in which he believes, but it will involve local authorities in costs. They are hard pressed and their resources are stretched, particularly in education. Local authorities are entitled to say what our constituents are generally saying, which is that they do not want the Bill as it stands or the proposed powers. If the Government want them, they must be prepared to pay for them rather than taking resources from other areas of education to provide for the Bill's implementation. The new clause is designed to cover that.
The Government are introducing the most expensive alternative form of raising revenue for local authorities that it is possible to devise. They expect local authorities to recruit extra people, to take on extra computing facilities and to incur extra costs to collect a tax that may produce no more—and probably less—revenue in net terms. The Government tell the people that the Bill is about efficiency and about reducing the cost of administration, but it specifically increases costs and does not increase efficiency and democratic accountability.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) would go to the stake over the wording in his new clause. However, the principle of local authorities being asked to implement the Bill and to lake on the cost is wrong. They should be fully reimbursed for implementing the Bill and should at least be fully consulted about its implications. That is all that the new clause asks, and my colleagues and I support it.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I was astounded by the speech of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) because he spoke against the principle of school boards. I would have understood the hon. Gentleman's stance if he had spoken


against the original consultation paper. To hear him speak one would think that nothing has taken place since then, whereas we have seen an enormous number of modifications and changes in the Bill. I am still unhappy about one or two parts of the Bill but its general thrust is right. We want to see greater participation by parents in schools. I can tell the hon. Member for Gordon that since the changes in the Bill the representations that I have had in my constituency have not been about its principle, which is what the hon. Gentleman spoke about.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), I have a good deal of sympathy for the new clause. That sympathy is not based on the assertion by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) who said that he did not reckon the spending of more than £5 million was worth while. It is worth spending some more money if that leads to better participation, more involvement and more interest by parents in the running of our schools. That will apply especially if some further improvements can successfully be made before the Bill leaves Parliament.
I, too, remain unpersuaded by my hon. Friend that the figures that he originally gave for what the school boards will cost will prove adequate. We have added some more activities for the boards and I hope that we shall be successful in increasing the size of teacher involvement on them. I have consistently said that that was necessary. I freely acknowledge that some of these changes will involve costs that are additional to those that my hon. Friend envisaged when drafting the Bill. All the evidence that I have seen from regional education authorities—from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and from Grampian—and the COSLA seems to show that the costs are likely to be higher than those outlined in the financial memorandum to the Bill and thus far given by my hon. Friend the Minister. I am sure that since the Bill was drafted my hon. Friend has taken a fresh look at the finances involved.
I do not want the school boards to be unsuccessful because of lack of resources. This is a good initiative. Let us make sure that it works and has the necessary resources. I agree that some local authorities and regional councils did not support the schools councils and do not want the school boards. Even so, I think they are a good and worthwhile development. As some of those authorities are uncertain about the value of this proposal, it is wrong that they should have to find money from other resources for the running of the boards beyond the amounts that my hon. Friend has earmarked for that.
I ask my hon. Friend to re-examine this matter and I look forward to hearing what he has to say. He and I want the boards to have enough money and to work. Let us not launch the new initiative short of funds and resources, thereby making it less likely to be successful.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I had hoped that we would hear a breakdown of the £5 million figure from the Government so that we could contrast it with COSLA's £17 million—but that has not been given so far. We live in hope that we shall hear one in the next hour or so.
I want to pick out some points from the COSLA paper. It assumes that the school boards will meet, on average, six times a year, which does not seem unreasonable, given that

schools may face crises of various kinds that might necessitate their meeting far more often. COSLA reasonably presumes that one education authority rep would attend three meetings of a school board a year on average. That, too, hardly seems excessive. Indeed, it would be reasonable to expect some reps to attend all six meetings—or more, if there were more.
COSLA assumes that the cost of running the service of clerks to the board will be £4·70 an hour, including national insurance, which seems hardly unreasonable—unless the Government intend to privatise the service and let some extremely underpaid clerk from a jobcentre do the job. Perhaps that is what they have in mind.
COSLA points out that the staffing costs cover providing professional advice and information support services—local education and finance staff—and the costs of attendance at board and committee meetings, but do not include the manpower costs of training. In other spheres of local government activity they would be included. Does the Minister think that this is a fair account of the true costs of running the service? In areas such as building and works it would not be considered so.
The Minister has promised us figures; I hope he will not delay in letting us have them, so that we can know the Government's real intentions.

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) started from the wrong premise, that there have been swingeing cuts in local government expenditure. That, as we all know, is wholly untrue. Everyone knows that there is far more local government expenditure now than ever before—[Interruption.] Everyone except Opposition Members, that is. There have, however, been cuts in the grossly inflated budgets of councils that thought they could spend the world—in which case Ministers have had to call them to order. Good housekeeping is as important in 1988 as it has been for 100 years or more. Opposition Members do not understand facts like that.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) was kind enough to mention my involvement with the new clause in Standing Committee. The costs are important. My hon. Friend the Minister has been most helpful and constructive in meeting the chairman of my education committee and her colleagues. They feel that the Bill has made constructive progress in Committee. So pleased are they with it that they have already set up six pilot school board schemes, which will go into action in August. There will probably be a seventh by the end of this week. That shows how a reasonable education authority has seen the importance of the Minister's policy, has taken a constructive interest in the Bill throughout its passage—and before, by commenting on the consultative papers—and has demonstrated how a local authority should handle this sort of issue in the interests of the parents, pupils and teachers in its area. That is all good news.
I thank my hon. Friend for the trouble he has taken to meet the representations of my education authority. Of course, he has not accepted every point that I raised in Committee, but he has accepted a significant number of them. I welcome the concessions that the Minister has tabled as amendments. Has he had second thoughts about the overall costs to local authorities? In Committee, we differed about the amount that Dumfries and Galloway had worked out for its school boards as compared with the computerised sum that was worked out for the whole of


Scotland. There was an enormous difference between my authority's and his Department's estimates of the costs. Whatever the costs are—£1 million, £5 million or £15 million—the education authorities want to know that they will be covered within their overall grant from the Scottish Office and that the costs will not come out of existing funds that are earmarked for other purposes.
I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith): if we are to set up the boards we should not ruin them by a shortage of funds. We must be wholehearted about this and make sure that costs, travelling expenses and so on are allowed for. As my hon. Friend knows, I believe that the proposed boards are marginally too small, and I should like a four or five-person increase in the size of boards that look after 1.000-pupil schools. I hope my hon. Friend will say a little more about costs, which worry local authorities. I say that as one who represents a local authority that is taking a constructive line on this and welcomes the Minister's proposals.

Dr. John Reid: Unlike the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), I object first to the boards, both in principle and in form, and secondly to the amount of expenditure that it is intended will be provided for them. It is nonsense to say that it does not matter whether that expenditure is £1 or £1 million, because any money spent on the boards could be used for other purposes and to provide badly needed resources in Scotland.
Grave issues are involved in terms of the form of the boards and the expenditure. It is not sufficient for the Minister to point out that in the past he has had to correct one or two minor errors in the estimates made by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, because minor mistakes made in the past by someone else do not justify the Minister making a major mistake now.
Our first objection is that any expenditure should be levied on boards which have been set up under the apparent guise of extending choice. We are all for choice, provided that it is real and not theoretical. However, we contend that expenditure is being planned for boards which do not substantially increase the choice of the vast majority of parents. Secondly, the boards could be taken over by unrepresentative groups. As the Minister knows, the boards will have the power to veto all senior appointments. Possible embarrassments and disruptive tendencies could arise from the formation of the boards. The power to raise funds could be interpreted by some as the power to levy charges.
We have raised these objections before, but they become more forceful when it is intended to spend money on the formation and implementation of some of the boards. That could be overcome if the Minister could point to any desire, evidence or empirical facts to suggest that there is a demand among the population in general for such expenditure on school boards.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. We are debating the costs of establishing bodies that will involve parents in schools. As the hon. Gentleman asks for evidence, may I take it that he is opposed to the proposal of Strathclyde regional council that there should be one school council per school, which would be every bit as expensive in terms of administrative

support? I should have thought that that gives the hon. Gentleman the evidence he wants. I am sorry that he obviously does not support the authority's proposition.

Dr. Reid: It would no doubt be extremely interesting to discuss the proposals for participation which are being put forward by almost everyone but the Minister. He will forgive me if I point out that the subject of today's debate is his plans. All the empirical evidence on those plans suggests that the overwhelming bulk of the population in Scotland oppose them. The overwhelming majority of parents, who are supposed to benefit from the boards which are being foisted on them, are opposed in principle and in practice to the form of the participation that the Minister suggests. Therefore, it is our contention that expenditure on such boards is also opposed by the vast majority of parents
.
We have also raised a point about the apparent discrepancy in the amount of expenditure. That is important because it obviously matters whether the difference between the Minister's estimates and those of COSLA is £1 million, £5 million or £50 million because the money that is being pushed in that direction could be well and better employed in other ways in Scotland.
We contend, as does COSLA, that the Government propose to spend just under £18 million on the proposed school boards. Predictably, the Scottish Office estimate is that the overall cost of the school boards will be about £5 million. I have no doubt that the Minister will surprise us at the end of the debate by admitting that he has perhaps been a bit wrong here and there, and by coming up with a revised figure and suggesting, spontaneously and not as if it was planned in advance, that we might compete with the new figure and distribute it in the form of specific grants, something which he has been trying to impose throughout the Committee stage but which has been rejected. However, by courtesy of a few planted comments from his Back-Bench colleagues, the issue has been raised again today.
There is such a major discrepancy between what COSLA maintains as being the cost of the school boards and the Minister's estimates that he must offer us not an overall global sum, but a detailed breakdown of the costs that lie behind the estimate which he will then ask us to accept. The unit costs of each school board can be anything from £5,000 to £6,000 for central support costs and basic administration.
I commend COSLA's briefing to the Minister. We do not claim—and it is not claimed—that every sum in it is absolutely correct to the nearest penny. As the Minister has said, there have been one or two modifications in the past. However, as I have already said, it is not good enough for the Minister simply to point out minor aberrations in the past, because that will not justify a major aberration on his part today.
If the Bill is to be steamrollered through the House in its present inadequate state, it is incumbent on the Government to adopt a more realistic attitude to the financing of the boards. The Government should realise the implications and be willing to support the reasonable costs which will inevitably be incurred if the school boards are foisted on unwilling parents, teachers and communities.
It is obvious that local authorities, and especially COSLA, must be involved in the ongoing consultation about expenditure, first, to monitor the expenditure,


secondly, to ensure fairness both to the boards—if the Government insist that they should be set up—and to the regional authorities, and, thirdly, to ensure that in future there will be some independent verification of the costs of running the boards and of the legitimacy of the benefits derived from such costs.
I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will have a rethink. In fairness to the boards that the Government wish to be established, to the authorities which will have a major role to play in education and in overseeing the boards, to the public, who are seeing money being spent on a project that they did not want in the first place, and to Parliament, which wants an independent estimate and survey of how much is being spent, I hope that the Government will accept the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg).

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) was at least honest and told the House that he was against the setting up of the boards in principle. We respect his honesty.
I advise the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) that I have never listened to such humbug in my life. It was a repetition of some of the humbug that we have heard from him previously. He was speaking against the principle of setting up the boards. However, he knows that the people in his constituency, and certainly, as far as I can ascertain, the people in the areas north of the Tay—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gordon was only too happy to talk about the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is a fact that north of the Tay, and certainly in Tayside, North—I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not try to tell me what is going on in Tayside, North—[Interruption.] I have listened to humour from Opposition Members in previous Parliaments. We see different faces now on the Opposition Benches from those in previous Parliaments.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: There are more and more of us each time.

Mr. Walker: Opposition Members come and Opposition Members go. We are here——

Mr. Alex Salmond: rose——

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is a new boy. He should sit down. When he has earned his spurs, he can stand up. After all, we know that one problem that we face in relation to school boards, and other matters, is the fact that the Scottish National party depends on lies for its message. As I keep telling the House, it puts out lies in my constituency. However, its lies will be found out. When hon. Members interfere in my constituency, I can only conclude that they are concerned about their own weak position.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: rose——

Mr. Walker: Yes, I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has been interfering in my constituency.

Mr. Welsh: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman says that, because he could not be more wrong. I do not interfere if I can help it—certainly not to my knowledge

—in the constituencies of other hon. Members. In relation to the particular instance that he mentioned, one of my constituents is a member of the organisation which sought an interview with the Minister. The hon. Member is very good at publicly threatening to sue people, but he never delivers. Instead of making big noises, I invite him to do something for a change.

Mr. Walker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that when he knows me better he will know that I fight on grounds of my choosing—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should listen carefully. First, he was interfering in my constituency, whether or not he has a constituent who wants to be a member of a committee, because the whole matter relates to my constituency and to my constituency only. I shall see the hon. Gentleman at a time and place of my choosing, and not when he chooses.
There is no question but that in Tayside, North parents wish to become much more involved in schools. They are looking forward to the Bill becoming an Act so that they can become part of the school board system. They are very keen on that because they recognise that the Government have introduced prudent, sensible and caring policies which this Bill represents. The Government have also devolved powers to people in so many of the Acts that have been passed. The school boards will devolve power to the parents and that will help the running of our schools.
Parents have a direct interest in what happens in schools. In the country areas people are certainly very interested and concerned to be much more directly involved in what is happening. That is part of the community spirit in country areas.—[Interruption.] I can speak for country areas because by constituency contains 2,000 sq miles of Scottish countryside. People in country areas have always been much more interested in community activities and will welcome the opportunity to be part of the operation of the school boards when they are introduced.
I have read new clause 1 very carefully and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reject it. Of all the bodies with which one would want to have ongoing consultations, COSLA would be the last. Having read some of the material from COSLA recently—[Interruption.] This is my advice to my hon. Friend the Minister and he can accept or reject it. I certainly would not accept new clause 1.
The Minister should give us a commitment that the Government will set up the boards and that the cost of running the boards is justified because we believe that they are good for Scottish education. There should be a commitment that the bill will be met. We do not want the Government to set up a consultation process that will produce a constant running battle and running sore. After all, we know that the Opposition are against school boards in principle. If the Opposition are against them in principle, they will argue against them all the time.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The juvenile tendency wing of the Tory party is a very difficult act to follow, but it is an easy act not to emulate.
I am concerned about the proposals for school boards. They look like yet another example of the process whereby central Government create extra burdens, responsibilities and financial outgoings for local authorities, yet do not give them the resources to meet those extra burdens and outgoings. We have seen that so often in legislation—for


example, in raising the school leaving age and passing Act after Act placing extra burdens on local authorities, but failing to provide resources to meet the burdens. I believe that the school boards are another example of that.
New clause 1 seeks to give COSLA a national monitoring and co-ordinating role on behalf of its members. That is exactly COSLA's role. It can provide a national picture because it has representatives from all over Scotland who can see what will happen when the school boards are implemented. COSLA has the machinery and expertise to provide a national picture of how the disparate local school boards are operating.
I know of no mechanism for an annual conference of school boards or a way for the boards to share experience or ideas. As a national group, local authorities should have some means of monitoring nationally the costs of school boards, and the ability to make representations to the Government on the basis of that monitoring and the information received. COSLA could carry out that national co-ordinating and monitoring, especially as the regions and island councils are responsible for education and will be carrying the financial burdens and responsibility to pay out the money to implement this legislation.
We are still entitled to ask how much the changes will cost. There is an amazing disparity between COSLA's estimates and those of the Government. COSLA estimates that it will cost £17·9 million to set up the school boards while the Government's estimate is only £5 million. There is a difference of tens of millions of pounds in the calculations. Will the Minister tell us on what the Government base their calculations? Education authorities are being asked to find money from their existing very stretched budgets to fund the new legislation. That is unfair on local authorities.
As COSLA has produced its financial calculations in detail, it is incumbent on the Government to do the same. COSLA has detailed its assumptions about the number and length of meetings. What are the Government's assumptions? COSLA has detailed its calculations about education authority input, the number of school board members, travel costs, annual average mileages and payments to clerks. Will the Government detail their figures so that the House can decide which set of figures is accurate and what the real burden will be on local authorities?
COSLA's members will have to bear the costs of the legislation. They have clearly done their homework. What calculations have the Government carried out? The Government are imposing the burdens in the legislation. What calculations have they carried out to compare with COSLA's? We and COSLA are entitled to know the figures and I hope that the Minister will address COSLA's figures in detail.
I support new clause 1 because I believe that COSLA cannot be ignored as the Government are intent on ignoring it. COSLA is a national governmental organisation and it will have a positive contribution to make in the implementation of the Bill when it becomes an Act. I hope that new clause I will be accepted and that, instead of ignoring COSLA, the Government will treat it with the seriousness that it deserves in implementing the legislation.

Mr. John McAllion: The right hon.
Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) is not alone in being unpersuaded by the Minister's figure of £5 million as the cost for implementing the school boards system. It would be difficult to imagine any Scot who would be persuaded by that figure with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who is persuaded by anything that his Government Front Bench colleagues tell him.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: And he still has not been promoted.

Mr. McAllion: As my hon. Friend says, he still does not get promoted.
I warn hon. Members to be very wary of the intervention made by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). He said that he had a great deal of sympathy with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld (Mr. Hogg). My first reaction to that was that I had not been listening properly to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Eastwood argued in favour of specific grants and I then knew why he had made his intervention. In Committee the Minister spent a great deal of time trying to persuade Committee members to accept that the expenditure for school boards that we were demanding should be provided in the form of specific grant so that the Minister could then hit us with the phrase that he used in Committee:
COSLA has fought tooth and nail against specific grants for specific activities in local government. It has argued that specific grants undermine local democracy, that the money should be provided as a rate support grant and that it should not be tagged to school boards."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 26 April 1988; c. 99.]
The hon. Member for Eastwood intervened because he was trying to draw Opposition Members into arguing on behalf of specific grants so that his hon. Friend the Minister could shoot those arguments to pieces in terms of COSLA's policies. We must be very wary of the intervention of the hon. Member for Eastwood.
I very much support the concept in new clause 1.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Gentleman should not see a deep conspiracy in every speech that I make. Does he agree that, while he has described COSLA's general policy, for which there are good reasons, there are specific grants? Does he also agree that if there were a specific grant, it would meet the point that the Opposition are making because it would be bound to be subject to detailed consultation?

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman fails to tell other hon. Members listening to the debate that the point about specific grants is that they are directly under the control of central Government. That is why COSLA is very wary of expenditure in the form of specific grants. COSLA's experience of central Government in education over the past 10 years is that they have continually cut the money available to local authorities to spend on education. That is why COSLA does not want a specific grant to fund expenditure on school boards. It wants that to be part of the rate support grant, but not so that it may be lost among other items up for discussion. That is why the new clause calls for support for school boards and for continuing


consultation with COSLA to identify the additional expenditure that will be necessary through the rate support grant system to fund the school boards.
I draw the Minister's attention to the necessity of continuing consultation with COSLA about the probable expense of school boards. Tayside regional council was asked to provide details of the financial and manpower implications of setting up the boards, and its answer obviously forms part of COSLA's submission to various hon. Members. The council could not provide an exact figure because there were far too many imponderables. No precise figure can be put on the cost of school boards until they have been set up. We do not know the amount of financial and other information that will have to be made available to them. The Bill states that education authorities shall provide
such information as the Board may from time to time reasonably request.
That is open-ended and authorities will not know what the school boards will ask them to provide or what the costs will be for providing that information. The Bill also states that the head teacher must seek the approval of boards for per capita expenditure.
A school board will not merely wish to know the per capita expenditure in its particular school—it will want to compare its figures with those of other schools in the area. Information will have to be supplied to every school board—and there will be more than 200 in Tayside—about per capita expenditure in all schools. That has enormous cost implications for education authorities. A structure should be established for local authorities to negotiate with the Government about the continuing costs of the school boards.
We debated the cost of the election arrangements in Committee. The Minister started from the premise that the ballot papers could be sent home with the children after school. It soon became clear to him that that simply would not work. In some areas children might be approached and asked for the ballot papers, or they might simply lose them. There will have to be a postal ballot of all parents in each school, and the costs will be enormous. However, at this stage the education authorities cannot even estimate them.
There is a similar problem with the appointments committee because a school board will be involved in a vetting process at the short-list stage for head teacher, deputy head teacher and assistant head teacher. Education authorities do not know the cost implications of that. The same is true about the remuneration for clerks to the school boards, as it is also true about the running costs. How often will school boards meet, at what time will they meet and what sort of funding will be required to support those meetings?
What about compensation to staff? The head teacher and other teachers will have to give up school time to attend school boards and new staff will have to be appointed to fill the gaps left in the timetables. No education authority can precisely estimate the full costs of implementing the school boards system. Tayside thinks that it will run into seven figures—more than £1 million. Yet the current cost of school councils is only £600 each. More than 200 school boards will be set up in Tayside and,

as COSLA says, the cost is likely to be in excess of £5,000 per school board. That gives some idea of the seriousness of the problem, especially on a national scale.
The Government's figures are unrealistic and it is essential that the Minister takes the criticisms on board. He should accept new clause 1 because it would set up a mechanism that would enable the school boards system to be implemented successfully rather than being a dismal failure, which would cause even more frustration in and destruction of our school system than has already been caused during nine years of this Government.

Mr. Henry McLeish: I support new clause 1. Most hon. Members will agree that, apart from the discordant note struck by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), there is a consensus on the need to match the role of school boards with resources. That is an important point to establish.
I am concerned about costs because there cannot be effective parental participation on the cheap. Perhaps the Minister wants to aspire to that, implement school boards for ideological reasons and then walk away from the reality of the costs. I hope that when he replies to this brief debate he will challenge my assertion and convince the House that he means business on the costs of supporting school boards.
While many Opposition Members have grave misgivings about school boards, there is a genuine interest in parental participation. I certainly do not have a vested interest in the destruction of school boards, once they have been implemented, simply because of a lack of funds. If the Government are investing politically in the development of school boards, it is incumbent upon the Minister to tell the House tonight that adequate resources will be available.
My confidence was not reinforced by some of the Minister's replies in Committee to questions about school boards, their role and how the mechanisms of funding would work. He was challenged about support services for what, in Scotland, is called the clerking of the boards. That is an essential function because without proper administration many boards will be unable to do the effective work required.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that this afternoon the House heard a statement about the extension of VAT to building for commercial uses and various other things. During that statement, the Minister told the House—perhaps inadvertently—that that was based on a directive that the House had approved in 1977. In fact, the directive was debated by the House on a take note motion——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman is continuing a debate on an earlier statement. What is the point of order for the Chair?

Mr. Marlow: The Minister put forward proposals on the basis that the House had approved the original document. The House has not approved it—it took note of the original document. Therefore, the basis on which we discussed it today was erroneous.
I do not believe that it is the Minister's fault, but it would be both right and appropriate for the Government to make some explanation of the misapprehension under which the House labours at the moment. It is an important issue and large sums of money are at stake——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point and put it on the record. It is not a point of order and it has nothing to do with this debate. He must find other ways, as I am sure he will, of pursuing the matter.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made it clear that it was not a point of order.

Mr. Hogg: My point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that the advice that you have just given to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who raised a bogus point, was absolutely right. However, those of us who represent Scottish constituencies are most anxious to prosecute the proceedings of the Bill in an orderly manner because it is important to the people of Scotland. It does not help when hon. Members representing English constituencies make a nonsense of our proceedings. That is not acceptable to the Opposition Front Bench—nor, I believe, is it acceptable to the House.

Mr. McLeish: The intervention by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) requires no comment from me, although I feel that it was an abuse of the House. Indeed, the Scots on the Opposition Benches have just heard our Front Bench spokesman making that point.
I was probing the question of support costs for the proper functions of school boards. The Minister was asked in Committee about how the costs could be contained, and he made a fairly remarkable statement. When pressed on how the committee of administration would function, the Minister suggested that one of the school board members should take the minutes. I found that quite incredible. We are talking about a major innovation in education in Scotland. The Minister is laughing, but we are used to that. We treat education in Scotland with respect, unlike the contempt which oozes from Ministers at every possible opportunity. When pressed on important items of costs, the Minister was quite happy to run away from them and throw out some political snippet as to how local authorities in Scotland could contain the costs.

6 pm

Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in Committee a number of hon. Members were interested in the point that he is now making? It emerged that it was being suggested that the members of the school boards—and I cited my own constituency where I know that lawyers, dentists, doctors and others hoped to be members of the proposed boards—would be only too happy to take on the duties of being secretary.

Mr. McLeish: I enjoyed greatly that intervention, because it summed up more adequately than I could, amateurism versus the professionalism that Scottish education has exhibited over the years. Bankers, dentists, retired people, probably some generals will be brought back from the colonies to man the school boards—an excellent contribution to the future quality of school boards.
To highlight two or three issues which give cause for concern, I shall refer to the excellent COSLA paper which was produced as a briefing. First, no one would dispute the fact that at this stage it is impossible to identify the amount of expenditure required for the boards to function. We

seek to ensure that the Government take seriously the fact that a large amount of new expenditure will be needed, and consequently the Government will have to say to the local authorities and the representatives of the education unions that if reasonable costs are put forward for such a venture they are willing to support those costs.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman referred to the position I took in Committee about clerks, which was that clerks should not necessarily be local authority employees. As he also referred to the COSLA briefing document, will he comment on the fact that the COSLA estimate of the costs of providing the clerks' services are in line with what I told the Committee, that is, that it does not make the assumption that they should be local authority employees? I wonder whether his criticism and derision that has been directed at me is also directed at COSLA.

Mr. McLeish: I would never withdraw any derision that I aimed at the Minister because I believe sincerely that the Minister's attitude towards Scottish education is, in the main, highly negative and destructive, so I shall not take any instructions from him about my interest in and my contribution to the welfare of Scottish education.
We have identified the first point: the Government are willing the end but are unwilling to consider the means of delivery. My second point has been made, but it needs to be stressed. Scottish education authorities are facing massive constraints on their expenditure at present. There is no way in which they can make up the substantial shortfall between what the Government provide for school boards and what is necessary for the proper, effective functioning of those boards. I hope that the Government will take that seriously.
The local authority in my constituency, Fife regional council, an excellent education authority which puts excellence first, will be faced with a possible bill of about £1·2 million for implementing the school boards. Whether it is £1·5 million or £500,000, it is a very significant sum of money, and £1·2 million would represent I per cent. of its total gross expenditure on education. My concern is that the spending possibly of £1·2 million by 200 schools requires the Government honestly to reassure the House this evening that if such costs are incurred they will be met by the Government. School boards were their idea, and clearly, if they want them to be successful, Fife regional authority, and other education authorities, must have a reimbursement of costs, because most education authorities will look positively at the legislation when it is on the statute book. Will the Minister, in his reply, make that absolutely clear? Whether we are talking about £5 million or £19·5 million is irrelevant. It is the principle of whether the new boards can function effectively if the Government walk away from their responsibilities for the expenditure.
Finally, specific grants have been mentioned. Our concern is that the Bill paves the way for opting out in future. If we accept specific grants, that will be another attack on local education authorities because it will increasingly centralise decision making and direct funding to education. That is not wanted by the education authorities, the education unions, or by the Opposition. It will be a further nail in the coffin of publicly provided education in Scotland. I hope that, apart from providing reassurance about funding, the Minister will reject specific


grants which would bypass education authorities and create the hostility that is so prevalent in education and that the Opposition wish to dampen down.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am slightly puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's remarks about specific grants. New clause 1 provides that
the establishment and continuing support of school boards will be the subject of separate and ongoing consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
The new clause does not specify who the Opposition wish to consult with COSLA. I find it hard to believe that they meant the Government, because, clearly, there are already consultations between the Government and COSLA about local authority spending and the rate support grant. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) from a sedentary position says, "Separate". That is the point which I wish to draw to the attention of the House. If the funding of school boards is to be subject to separate consultation and to be labelled as separate from the rate support grant, by any test of the meaning of specific grants—which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) was calling for—that would be a specific grant, because it would be subject to separate negotiations and would have a separate purpose.
I realise why the Opposition are determined not to embrace specific grants. It has nothing to do with opting out; it is because it is COSLA's policy to reject the notion of specific grants. I am all the more puzzled because on Second Reading and throughout the Committee proceedings I gave specific and clear undertakings that the cost of school boards would be taken into account in the rate support negotiations, that we did not wish this initiative in any way to be impoverished, and that we would provide the resources which were required to make the school boards function. I am at a loss to understand why the Opposition are asking the House to support the new clause.

Mr. McLeish: Perhaps the briefing that the Minister has received has not been as good as it would have been if this were a Government new clause. It is clear that new clause 1 is about the volume of expenditure being separately discussed between various parties. The Minister knows that specific grant allocation is about the mechanism of the delivery of the finance. He should not confuse the two issues. He is doing that. Will he not accept that new clause 1 means that the volume should be discussed? Specific grants go much further than anything in new clause 1.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has a funny idea of what is a specific grant. A specific grant is a grant which is given for a specific purpose. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that in the rate support grant discussion account should be taken of school boards and that they should be subject to negotiation, I have already given that undertaking. Even now, as we speak, that process has begun and negotiations are taking place between COSLA and the Scottish Office on the appropriate level of support provided within the rate support grant settlement to meet the cost of the school boards, in anticipation of the House giving the Bill its consent. The hon. Gentleman is chasing an illusion and, having heard his account of what a specific grant is, I can better understand how we have reached this position.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister has said in Committee and on Report that he will take account of the requirements for funding implementation of the school boards system. That is very different from saying that he will guarantee that the Government will fund the costs, whatever they are, as they become apparent through consultation between himself and COSLA. Will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that, when the costs become obvious to him and local authorities, the Government will fund them and not leave it to local authorities to find the money from among their other revenue expenditure?

Mr. Forsyth: There are several judgmental qualifications in the hon. Gentleman's question. As part of the negotiations, the cost of school boards will be fully taken into account, but I am not prepared to give COSLA a blank cheque whereby whatever it says the costs will be becomes the amount provided. If that were the basis on which we funded local government, there would be no need for negotiations and we would be back in the position faced in 1978, when Labour was in government. I am getting tired of repeated questioning on whether the school boards will be funded in this way. I shall carefully consider the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood that we should consider a specific grant for this purpose. In the meantime, I am prepared to operate on the basis of negotiations with COSLA, taking full account of the costs that it wishes to take on board.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) pressed me to look at COSLA's estimate, and I have done so carefully. In Committee, I said that we thought that the cost would be about £5 million. I acknowledge that COSLA, unlike the hon. Gentleman, has found a saving of about £700,000 from the abolition of school councils, which is on the basis of a comparable figure to ours, putting our estimate at £5·7 million in total.
COSLA's figures are a little questionable. I acknowledge that the Opposition have been generous enough to accept many of the arguments which I put in criticism of the Dumfries and Galloway estimates. I believe, from memory, that COSLA's estimates have changed from £12 million to £15 million to £20 million, and now the estimate is down to £17·6 million. There has been a degree of movement by COSLA——

Mr. Galbraith: Flexibility.

Mr. Forsyth: I am happy to be flexible. Whether we are talking about £5 million or £10 million as a proportion of the total expenditure in education, we are dealing with very small sums.

Mr. McLeish: One per cent.

Mr. Forsyth: Less than 1 per cent., and, by our estimate, rather more than the equivalent cost of two extra pupils in an average secondary school.
It is difficult to understand how boards with only basic powers—the basis of COSLA's estimate—meeting six times a year are likely to need more than £3·5 million of computer hardware and how it is possible that each board will consume £1,200 of stationery and telephone calls in a year. The estimate for training, at £2·4 million, is a ballpark figure for which no basis is given. It is a little difficult to understand, given the Government's undertaking that we shall fund training centrally. COSLA's global estimate includes nearly £1·8 million for staff replacement costs. As I pointed out in Committee, we have


already arranged for that aspect of the impact of school boards to be accommodated within the new staffing standards, which we aim to publish, in line with our undertakings, before the end of the current school year. There is no need for that to be included in the estimate. When one strips away even those more dubious assumptions, we are talking perhaps about an estimate that lies between £5 million and £10 million, rather than £17 million. As I have said repeatedly, we are not absolutely thralled to the idea of £5 million. The negotiating machinery exists and, by now, COSLA should know how to use it.
6.15 pm
After a good Committee stage, when a number of positive suggestions were put forward which I was happy to accept, I am dismayed that the Opposition should claim to support the Bill's principle but criticise the financial implications when the Government seek to put it into effect. In an intervention, I said that Strathclyde region had a stance, as part of the Labour party's policy, of one school per council. It is difficult to understand how a school council for every school, with the additional powers that Labour proposes, would be significantly cheaper than the school boards, with the limited powers which are the basis of COSLA's assumption.

Mr. Norman Hogg: We are not attempting to argue costs on that basis. We are simply saying that there should be a separate monitoring apparatus within the structure—COSLA—because we are far from persuaded about the Minister's estimates, which are now between £5 million and £10 million.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. By taking out the more obvious items that should not be included, we are arguing about between £5 million and £10 million. I am not saying that my estimate is £10 million—far from it. I am saying that it is a matter for negotiation. I accept what the hon. Gentleman states in all honesty is his position, but that was not the position taken by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) or some of his other colleagues, who clearly argued against the principle of the Bill and said that this was not a proper use of funds.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East was at pains to emphasise the costs of providing the reports, statements and other information that the Bill will entitle a board to receive and request. That was another example of the kind of objection to the Bill's principle about which I am trying to persuade the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. The Opposition appear to be arguing for a restriction on a board's access to information, whereas the Scottish Labour party claims that parents are interested in that access. Labour Members find themselves in a curious position.

Mr. McAllion: By referring to the additional information that would have to be referred to school boards, I was making a point about the cost to the education authority of supplying that information. The Minister did not take that into account. He does not make sufficient sums available to allow education authorities to provide the information required by school boards.

Mr. Forsyth: I have repeatedly given undertakings that those costs will be met through the rate support grant. The hon. Gentleman must accept what we say. That

undertaking will be met. The Opposition's insistence on not accepting it leaves me entitled to take the view, that basically they oppose the principle of the Bill and seek to argue against it.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Does the Minister realise that the rate support grant will meet up to only 52 per cent. of the costs and that ratepayers will have to find vast sums to subsidise the system? That will be a massive burden on taxpayers and ratepayers in Strathclyde, which is a huge authority. The Minister's proposals will cost a lot of money. Will he comment?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman needs to take account of the effect of having school boards where the people who see how the money is being spent in the schools can form judgments. My view is that the proposal is likely to make significant savings and create within the education system a body of people who can police it more effectively than councillors, albeit with the best of motives, who are remote from what is happening on the ground. The hon. Gentleman needs to put that point in the balance.
I was asked about the rate support grant. I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman will be delighted that this year the Government's allocation for education has been increased by no less than 9 per cent., which is well ahead of inflation and provides ample scope for absorbing a number of initiatives.

Mr. Graham: That is irrelevant.

Mr. Forsyth: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was worried about the basis of expenditure. I should have thought that he would be delighted that the Government have been able to increase expenditure on education by no less than 32 per cent. in real terms since 1979.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) rightly expressed her worry about the provision of adequate training for members of school boards. I assure her that a comprehensive package is being prepared, which will include a variety of training material and information for board members and which will be funded centrally. We are also working on training for head teachers, whose management role will include working with the boards. That training will include material on their new relationships, so I think that the hon. Lady can rest assured.

Mrs. Fyfe: I accept the Minister's assurance on those aspects of training. However, I was referring to the background training costs for professionals who will be required to service the committee. That cost will have to be included in an account of the true cost of running such boards.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady has made a separate point, which will undoubtedly be taken into account. Certainly we have borne it in mind in our estimates. It will be open to the boards to decide where to purchase additional training. We shall provide them with a budget for that purpose. Some enterprising local authorities may even be able to produce training packages which are competitive and those authorities may make a profit on the exercise. The boards themselves will test what is appropriate material, exercising their own discretion in the market place.

Mrs. Fyfe: I am anxious that the Minister has forgotten the undertaking that he gave to me earlier when I intervened to ask for a breakdown of the Government's own figure, which was then £5 million. I am interested to hear the breakdown if the figure is as much as £10 million.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady asked me to give a breakdown of our estimate of £5 million. That sum was made up as follows: £250,000 for elections, £286,000 for members' travel allowances, £554,624 for training, £3,360,000 for administrative support and £559,376 for miscellaneous purposes. I hope that I have helped the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it really permissible that the Government's figures should be gabbled at us at enormous speed? We should have the figures on a sheet of paper before us so that we can make a proper study of the proposals.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): They will be published in Hansard tomorrow.

Mr. Forsyth: I am sure that the hon. Lady will wish to study them and to question me again. I shall be happy to answer any points she may wish to raise.
My hon. Friends made a number of points. May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) how much I appreciate the help that we have had from Dumfries and Galloway and the remarks he made about the Scottish Office and its ability to work with that council.
Some hon. Members are concerned about the costs and believe that the Government do not have their estimates right. We have provided funding to help the pilot study to operate in Dumfries and Galloway and we shall be considering carefully the experience there. Part of that experience will enable us to form an assessment of the likely costs that will arise and of which we shall take account. It will also enable us to test some of the training material and to form a view before the legislation comes into effect. We are profoundly grateful to the chairman of the education committee and the director of education for the co-operation and help that they have given us.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) advised me not to analyse the COSLA estimates. That was good advice but I was unable to take it, following the strictures of other hon. Members. He asserted that local authorities were stretched in their education budgets. That is untrue, because we have provided substantial extra resources—nearly one third. The hon. Gentleman said that he would favour providing the funds if the school boards were a partnership. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries was right to point out that the hon. Gentleman wanted it both ways; he was arguing in favour of the principle and against the practice, which is a position often taken by his party.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) pointed out that I had given undertakings in Committee that would add to costs. I acknowledge that, but they will provide for a more effective school board system and I can assure him that there is no question of the Government seeking to pare the resources for school boards with the result that they fail or do not operate as effectively as possible.
We believe that the school boards will improve our schools fundamentally by bringing parents, school staff

and the wider local community into closer involvement. Those benefits cannot be quantified easily. Nevertheless, they will be significant and enduring. We are not arguing for school boards at any price. The cost nationally will be modest—as I said, at the most a fraction of 1 per cent. of current local authority spending on education. I therefore urge the House to reject the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 278.

Division No. 370]
[6.26 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Allen, Graham
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Alton, David
Fisher, Mark


Anderson, Donald
Flannery, Martin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Flynn, Paul


Armstrong, Hilary
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foster, Derek


Ashton, Joe
Foulkes, George


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fraser, John


Barron, Kevin
Fyfe, Maria


Battle, John
Galbraith, Sam


Beckett, Margaret
Galloway, George


Bell, Stuart
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Bidwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Blair, Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blunkett, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boateng, Paul
Gordon, Mildred


Boyes, Roland
Gould, Bryan


Bradley, Keith
Graham, Thomas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Grirfiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Grocott, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Buckley, George J.
Haynes, Frank


Caborn, Richard
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Callaghan, Jim
Heffer, Eric S.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Henderson, Doug


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Canavan, Dennis
Holland, Stuart


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Home Robertson, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hood, Jimmy


Clay, Bob
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clelland, David
Howells, Geraint


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoyle, Doug


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Illsley, Eric


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Janner, Greville


Corbyn, Jeremy
John, Brynmor


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Crowther, Stan
Kennedy, Charles


Cryer, Bob
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cummings, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lambie, David


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lamond, James


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Leadbitter, Ted


Dewar, Donald
Leighton, Ron


Dixon, Don
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Terry


Doran, Frank
Litherland, Robert


Douglas, Dick
Livsey, Richard


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McAllion, John


Eadie, Alexander
McCartney, Ian


Eastham, Ken
McKelvey, William


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McLeish, Henry


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McTaggart, Bob


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Madden, Max


Fatchett, Derek
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Faulds, Andrew
Marek, Dr John


Fearn, Ronald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)






Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ruddock, Joan


Martin, Michael J, (Springburn)
Salmond, Alex


Martlew, Eric
Sedgemore, Brian


Maxton, John
Sheerman, Barry


Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Meale, Alan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Michael, Alun
Short, Clare


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spearing, Nigel


Morgan, Rhodri
Steinberg, Gerry


Morley, Elliott
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Strang, Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Straw, Jack


Mowlam, Marjorie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Nellist, Dave
Turner, Dennis


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Vaz, Keith


O'Brien, William
Wall, Pat


O'Neill, Martin
Wallace, James


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walley, Joan


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Parry, Robert
Wareing, Robert N.


Patchett, Terry
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Pendry, Tom
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Pike, Peter L.
Wigley, Dafydd


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Primarolo, Dawn
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wilson, Brian


Radice, Giles
Winnick, David


Randall, Stuart
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Worthington, Tony


Reid, Dr John
Wray, Jimmy


Richardson, Jo
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)



Rogers, Allan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rooker, Jeff
Mr. John McFall and Mr. Martin Redmond.


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)



Rowlands, Ted





NOES


Adley, Robert
Browne, John (Winchester)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Alexander, Richard
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Buck, Sir Antony


Amess, David
Budgen, Nicholas


Amos, Alan
Burns, Simon


Arbuthnot, James
Butcher, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butler, Chris


Ashby, David
Butterfill, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Atkins, Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, David
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carttiss, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sydney


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chope, Christopher


Batiste, Spencer
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Benyon, W.
Colvin, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Conway, Derek


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Body, Sir Richard
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Couchman, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cran, James


Boswell, Tim
Critchley, Julian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Curry, David


Bowis, John
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Day, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Devlin, Tim


Bright, Graham
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Dicks, Terry


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James





Dover, Den
Kilfedder, James


Dunn, Bob
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Durant, Tony
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Knapman, Roger


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Evennett, David
Knowles, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Farr, Sir John
Lang, Ian


Favell, Tony
Latham, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lawrence, Ivan


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lord, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Freeman, Roger
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


French, Douglas
McCrindle, Robert


Fry, Peter
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gale, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gardiner, George
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Major, Rt Hon John


Goodlad, Alastair
Malins, Humfrey


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maples, John


Gorst, John
Marland, Paul


Gow, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gregory, Conal
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miller, Sir Hal


Grist, Ian
Mills, Iain


Ground, Patrick
Miscampbell, Norman


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, John
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Harris, David
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David


Hawkins, Christopher
Neale, Gerrard


Hayes, Jerry
Nelson, Anthony


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Neubert, Michael


Hayward, Robert
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Heddle, John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hill, James
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hind, Kenneth
Page, Richard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Paice, James


Holt, Richard
Patnick, Irvine


Hordern, Sir Peter
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Howard, Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Pawsey, James


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Portillo, Michael


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Price, Sir David


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunter, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Redwood, John


Irvine, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Irving, Charles
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Janman, Tim
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rost, Peter


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rowe, Andrew


Key, Robert
Rumbold, Mrs Angela






Ryder, Richard
Thorne, Neil


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Thornton, Malcolm


Sayeed, Jonathan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Colin (Heroford)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Ward, John


Shersby, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sims, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Watts, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wells, Bowen


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wheeler, John


Speller, Tony
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wiggin, Jerry


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilshire, David


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Stevens, Lewis
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)



Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. David Maclean.


Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

COMPOSITION OF BOARDS

Mr. John McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 9, at end insert—
'(d) persons (to be known as "community members") who are representatives of community groups, and who shall be elected jointly by members of the staff of the school and by parents of pupils in attendance at the school.'

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 35, in page 2, leave out line 10 and insert
`in such numbers as are prescribed in Schedule 5 to this Act.'

No. 2, in page 2, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
`(2) The prescribed number of parent members shall not exceed the total prescribed representation of other groups on the School Board.'.

No. 34, in page 2, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) The number of parent members shall equal the combined representation of other groups on every school Board'.

No. 39, in page 2, leave out lines 13 to 15.

No. 38, in page 2, leave out line 18 and insert 'Schedule 5'.

No. 37, in page 2, line 27, leave out
`variation of regulations made under this section or'.

No. 10, in page 2, line 37, leave out from third 'a' to end of line 39 and insert
`parent member (under subsection (1)(a) above), and who is also eligible as a staff member (under subsection (1)(b) above) may be a candidate for election to the Board in one capacity only.'.

No. 27—a new schedule—

`MEMBERSHIP OF SCHOOL BOARDS
1. The composition of a school board will be linked to the size of the school measured by the number of pupils in attendance. Except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4 below, the number of members in each category will be as shown in the following table:



Number of pupils
Parent Members
Staff Members
Co-opted Members
Total


1– 10*
3
1
2
6


101– 500
4
2
2
8


501–1000
5
2
3
10


1001–1500
6
3
3
12


over 1500
7
3
4
14


* Not applicable to single teacher schools.


2. The number of pupils will be assessed at the time of the school census each year.
3. Single teacher schools will be treated as a separate class with two parent members and two co-opted members.
4. Subject to section 2 of this Act, an education authority may draw up a scheme to make different provision for different schools and for different classes of schools than that provided for in this Schedule.
5. Such a scheme made under paragraph 4 above must be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval.'

Mr. McFall: The Opposition wish to highlight four main themes in these amendments: the community aspect of school boards, the parental majority, the composition of school boards, and parents who are also teachers.
Amendment No. 10 proposes that a parent shall be eligible for school board membership as either a parent or staff member. If individuals are not allowed to choose whether they stand as staff or parent members, we shall be disfranchising them, when there is no need to do that. Individuals should be allowed to stand in either capacity. A staff member could bring to the board a degree of experience that did not necessarily owe to their being a member of the staff but simply because they are a parent. The individual should be allowed to apply that experience to the benefit of the board.
We are advocating also that individuals should be elected to the board jointly by staff and parents. The school itself is part of the wider community and is not cut off from it in any way. Sadly, even the Bill's title incorporating the word "Board" relates to a 19th century concept, showing that the Government have not caught up with the reality of modern day schools and education. The wider community must be involved in the working of the school and should be allowed to make a contribution to it.
Over the past six months, I have received at least six HMI reports on different schools in my own constituency. Each and every one of those reports has a section headed "Community Development". Inspectors judge schools by the level of their involvement in the local community and also by the personality and thrust of the head teacher and the degree to which he or she engages the involvement of the wider community in the work of the school. As inspectors attach that degree of credence to that aspect, to the extent that no HMI report omits a reference to community development, we suggest that the community should be involved in the work of school boards and their decisions and deliberations.
We contend that there should be no parental majority on school boards, and we have an impeccable source for such a recommendation—the parents themselves in Scotland. There were 7,600 responses to the proposals, which was so overwhelming a response that the Minister allowed extra time for them to be considered. A major theme of those responses was that the concept of partnership is important. Time and time again, parents expressed the view that they wanted greater involvement and to take more decisions, but that they also wanted


teachers and educationists to look after their children, not only other parents. Their main reason for thinking that way was because they are aware of the danger of a prejudiced minority group gaining power. They prefer instead to put their faith in teachers to do what is best for their children's future.
The subject of parental control touches on a number of other areas. A recent article in The Times Educational Supplement quotes Mr. Alistair Marquis, head of Bankton primary school, Livingstone, when addressing a recent conference. He warned that the danger of parent-dominated school boards was that they would retard progress in integrating children with special needs into ordinary primary schools. He said that such boards could dictate to head teachers on matters they did not understand and would obstruct sound educational development. There is no more sound an educational development than special needs schools. That head teacher was concerned about the concept of school boards as contained in the Government's proposals.
6.45 pm
I refer also to a letter published in the Glasgow Herald on 7 April in the wake of the controversy at Jordanhill school concerning the question of opting out. One of the parents involved, Mr. Clement, wrote that there were dangers in attempting to transfer the detailed management of schools to school boards dominated by parents. His message was that what teachers needed most from parents was support overall, and not just from a small number of them. That was the view of a parent who had experienced the process of parental involvement over those past crucial months in Jordanhill's history.
The Government's proposals will do nothing for the majority of parents. They are justified on the grounds that they will involve parents in the education of their children and will give real decision-making powers. I contend that, as in Lewis Carroll's "Alice Through the Looking Glass", the Government use words to mean exactly what they choose them to mean—neither more nor less. Despite the Government's rhetoric, their proposals will do nothing for parents. In justifying that remark, I refer the House to the Government's regulations for the composition of school boards and the domination of parents over all other groups.
A secondary school having between 500 and 1,000 pupils—which is typical of most secondary schools in my own region of Strathclyde, which is the largest in Scotland—will be allowed five parent members. Thus about 2,000 parents in a typical Strathclyde school will be represented by just five of their number, who will have the overwhelming majority on the school board. Those five members will account for just 0·25 per cent. of the total number of parents concerned, which must be a matter of primary concern to all concerned with education. We argue that the Government should allow the board's structure to be defined by Parliament. That can be arranged in a simple tabular form, as proposed in amendment No. 27. There, the number of parent members is equally matched by the combination of teachers and other interested parties. Such a composition will fairly reflect the common interest in the school's work—being shared by parents, teaching and non-teaching staff, and the local education authority. An absolute majority of parents would be detrimental to the proper consideration of important matters.
In Committee, the Minister indicated that he was prepared to give this matter further thought. I ask him to do so on the basis that there is a need for stability in education today, so that the issues facing Scottish education may be properly addressed. In the wake of the teachers' dispute, stability is needed, especially with the introduction of innovations such as standard grade, the 16–18 action plan and the TVEI course. Other areas of importance include nursery and adult education. We need partnership and consensus, and the proposals in the amendments make sense. We ask the Minister to reinforce the comments he made in Committee and to think, and to think again, about these proposals.

Mr. McAllion: I support the arguments put forward by forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on this group of amendments. In particular, I want to draw attention to schedule 5, which deals with the role of teachers on school boards.
Earlier today some hon. Members met representatives of teachers' unions, COSLA and parent bodies to discuss school boards. They made clear to us their unhappiness about the Bill, the composition of school boards and the relationship between parents, teachers and other interested bodies. In particular, the parents' representatives echoed the anxieties of many other bodies, such as the Church of Scotland, schools councils, other political parties and teachers' organisations, which were discussed in Committee. That is a measure of the divisiveness of the concept of parental majority on the school board.
The parents made it clear that they would like to see the Government trying to achieve a partnership between the home and the school through reform in the schools and through the involvement of more parents. The object of a partnership between parents and teachers and all the other groups associated with education is defeated by including within the Bill the divisive condition that there should be a parental majority on every school board who would thereby have a stranglehold on the board's activities.
The parents stressed the importance of trying to achieve a balance on the school board. For example, one drew attention to the tremendous difference between his experience in the local parent-teacher association and on the school council. The parent-teacher association was dominated by parents with only a few teachers involved and was described as a kind of inquisition of the teachers. It was not constructive or conducive of anything good for the school. The school council achieved a better balance between teachers and parents. There was more constructive debate and the school, parents, teachers and everybody else benefited. The parents wanted to achieve an even discussion within the school board system. They fear that the parental majority, upon which the Minister is insisting, will prevent school boards from achieving anything of any worth.
The parents to whom we spoke were also disappointed about the lack of staff representatives on the school hoard. My hon. Friend has already drawn attention to that fact. They realise that if there is to be a partnership more teachers will have to have representation on the school boards. Many school boards of schools with up to 1,000 pupils could have only one staff representative and that would be likely to frustrate goodwill.
The parents also wished to see other divisive elements removed from the Bill—for example, the right of the school board to veto the per capita expenditure proposals


of the head teacher. They saw no need for that. They felt that a good head teacher—almost all head teachers are good—would be concerned to carry the school board with them so that there would be no necessity for the school board to have such a veto. The head teacher would consult the school board and take on board its views.
Another concern is that the parental majority so admired by the Minister involves only up to four parents. They could be a strong unrepresentative clique dominating the school board, and the mass of parents with children at such a school would have no means of influencing them.
In Committee, the Minister said that he could envisage circumstances when there would be no need for school boards to have an annual general meeting with the parents of the school if nothing had happened in the past year to justify holding such a meeting. If the Minister were serious, that would suggest that school boards would do nothing. However, parents consider that school boards should be accountable to the vast majority of parents who should be able at least once a year to meet the school board to discuss with it what has been going on in their name.
Similarly, the Bill allows education authorities to delegate powers to school boards with the agreement of the school board and the education authority. That means that delegation can take place without reference to parents. There is a provision in the Bill which allows the delegation of powers from an education authority to a school board and, where there is conflict between the two, the matter is referred to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the parents must be balloted on whether a delegation of powers should be allowed. If there is agreement between the education authority and the school board, parents need never be referred to, and that is another omission from the Bill. Powers can be delegated to school boards without the parents ever being consulted.
Those are the issues with which this group of amendments attempts to deal.
The teachers' representatives made it clear that they want to see an increased representation for their people on the school boards. Recently I went to see my son playing for the school team in a cup final in Dundee. [Interruption.] St. Colomba's primary school in Dundee swept the board and took all four trophies. However, this is a serious point because such school teams could not exist without the tremendous efforts made by teachers. I was speaking to one of those dedicated teachers who gives his own time to school football teams. He told me that if the Government bring in school boards with only one staff representative, because the role of the teacher has been so downgraded under the Government, he is beginning to wonder whether all his years of effort have been worthwhile. That is the effect that the Government's divisive measures are having on staff representatives throughout Scotland. The Minister should take that on board and start thinking seriously about it.
The Government's proposal for a parental majority on school boards is a device whereby they can undermine the influence of education authorities and teachers in Scotland. We know that the Minister's concept of education in Scotland as he would like to see it is different from that which is current among the vast majority of Scottish people and from that held by teacher associations and education authorities. He cannot break down the

resistance of education authorities or teacher associations, who will not give way because they have won the argument, and he is now trying to get round them by creating a school board with a parental majority which can create a kind of dictatorship of small cliques of parents who think like the Minister and who, like the Minister, want to see what the Bill has always been about. It has never been about parental involvement or improving the quality of education in our schools; it is about paving the way for the Bill that will come after this one—the Bill that will allow schools to opt out of local education authority control.
When we spoke to the parents at the meeting this afternoon, someone made the point that for a number of years this Minister and previous Scottish Ministers have been creating a climate in Scotland whereby parents will begin to want to opt out of local education authority control. They have been starving education authorities of the necessary funds with which to provide quality education. They have been creating the climate whereby people will say that they would be better off outside local education authority control.
Now the Government are creating the institutional mechanism by which that opting out of education authority control will be achieved—the school board system with a parental majority based on a small unrepresentative clique which thinks like the Minister. It is all about dividing Scottish education, breaking up the comprehensive system and creating a two-tier system of education in Scotland. For those reasons I support the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton.

Mr. Allan Stewart: We have had what might be described as a hard-line speech from the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). It became fairly clear that he is against the whole concept of meaningful parental involvement in Scottish education.
It is a misapprehension held by the Opposition, and, I regret to say, by the Government, that there is some kind of continuum between school boards and opting out. As I said in Committee, I believe that the two concepts are fundamentally different, because this is about parental involvement—it is not about parental choice—while opting out, of course, is about parental choice.
7 pm
It is worth commenting that members of school boards will have the same accountability as hon. Members of the House; they will be subject to re-election by their constituents if people wish to stand against them. We are not subject to election if other people do not stand against us or do not put up candidates against us, but I am bound to say that that happy state of affairs is not very common.
It is also inherent in any system of parental involvement that unless the only form of involvement is a mass meeting of all parents one will have a system whereby a small number are elected.
My main point is to contradict the impression which the hon. Member for Dundee, East may have given to the House that parents are against a parental majority. I do not doubt for a moment that he accurately reflected the view of those to whom he referred, but it is clearly not the view of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, which is a very representative body. [Interruption.] It just shows Opposition Members' ignorance of the existence of


organisations which are interested in parental involvement in Scottish education. The Scottish Parent Teacher Council is accepted by all knowledgeable Members—that does not necessarily include all hon. Members present—as the representative body of parents on this issue.
I want to read a couple of sentences from a letter of 17 June, which l imagine was sent to all Scottish Members, in which the council stated:
SPTC wishes to re-emphasise its support for the parental majority on School Boards, whatever the actual numbers of parent, staff and co-opted members prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.
I think that it is worth quoting the council's reasons for that. It says:
School Boards will be essentially consultative bodies and simple numerical democracy demands that parents be in the majority.
It goes on to make the valid point that
Teachers already have a powerful influence on what happens in schools via staff meetings and union representation. Parents need School Boards for consultation purposes far more than teachers.
That is common sense and I hope that as these debates continue the other points raised by the council may be referred to by hon. Members. It is important for the House to recognise that parental opinion as represented through the council is clearly in favour of a parental majority on school boards.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: This group of amendments includes amendment No. 2, which stands in my name and makes the same fundamental point about parental majority as amendment No. 27, which I think that we may vote on and which I acknowledge develops the arguments quite constructively.
This group of amendments and this part of the Bill are in a sense for many people the core of what the Bill is about. I said in Committee, and I am happy to repeat now, that some elements of the powers that are being devolved in this Bill I am glad to see and support, but I do not believe that there is a demand and a wish that parents have an absolute majority. This feeling has been expressed by a wide variety of organisations—excluding the one which the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has just referred to.
Parents want a partnership, and these amendments seek to set up that partnership. These bodies are not consultative, as the Scottish Parent Teacher Council claims, but have real powers, which is something that the Government are boasting about. It is quite a different matter to suggest what should apply to a consultative body when we are talking about a body with defined executive powers, which the Minister would not wish to be otherwise. I therefore support these amendments and the principle behind them.
I find it rather extraordinary that, given that the Minister who is handling this Bill is also the Scottish Health Minister, he seems to have a rather different perception of different types of professionals. On other issues he seems happy to suggest that doctors and consultants are professionals whose views must be taken into account by the Government and the public. However, it would appear that teachers are professionals who must be brought to heel by the Government and the public. That seems to be a rather discriminatory view.
I find myself in a rather unusual situation and one that might even be a bit embarrassing, because in this area of parental power I support the Conservative party's Scottish

manifesto and it is Government Members who are not doing so. The Conservative manifesto said that the Government would introduce increased powers for school councils. My own party's manifesto and policy have followed exactly that course. So I very much support increased powers for school councils. Had some of the powers in this Bill been applied to school councils set up on a partnership basis, they would, in my view, have been welcome and acceptable.
In reply to the charge levelled against me by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), may I say that if the Minister is prepared to accept my amendment No. 2 or amendment No. 27, that will sufficiently change the calibre of the Bill to make for a genuine partnership, and I would then be inclined to vote for the Third Reading of the Bill, because I recognise that there are powers in this Bill that are worth passing on. The Minister had better accept that my views are not simply my own but have been expressed by parents throughout Scotland who do not believe that the parental majority is the right way to create the spirit of part nership in our education system that we certainly want, even if the Government do not.
I want to refer briefly, by way of illustration, to the figures produced by Education Alert and Lothian parents action group, which were made available yesterday. I do not know whether the Minister has a copy, but I suspect that he has. A random selection of parents in Grampian-Lothian predominantly, but with 20 per cent. from outside those two regions were asked:
Do you approve of parents having an overall majority?
The answer of 77·8 per cent. was no. They were then asked:
Do you think additional staff should be elected
and 87·9 per cent. said yes.
It seems to me, therefore, that a substantial body of opinion does not believe that parents should have an overall majority but thinks that teachers should have increased representation on the boards.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned this survey, which he described as a random selection. I wonder whether he noticed that over 17 per cent. of the respondents were parents who were also teachers, which scarcely seems representative. He has quoted the survey carried out by a partisan group. Does he not recall the System 3 poll, which showed that 52 per cent. of the sample in Scotland supported the idea of school boards with a majority of parents?

Mr. Bruce: Yes, I do. I have seen that and I remember that we had an extensive debate on it in Committee where the terms of the question were put in doubt by hon. Members. But I do not deny that it was published. The Minister said that this was a partisan group. The group would say that the only thing that is partisan about it is that its members are parents who care about their children's education.
If the Minister wishes to give some other explanation of what he means by that, I think that he should tell the House. Otherwise he has made a totally unwarranted and unjustifiable allegation. The Minister should be grateful for the work which the group has done. It has tried to find out the genuine views of parents. I do not suggest that the Minister should take it as a definitive result and abide by it, but he should not dismiss it so contemptuously because real concern has been expressed by a substantial majority.
The Minister makes the point that over 17 per cent. are parents who happen to be teachers. That is an interesting comment from the Minister. He is suggesting to the House, and presumably to the public, that only parents who are not teachers have a right to say how their children should be educated and that we are not entitled to benefit from the contribution of parents who happen to be teachers. Even if we disregard parents who are teachers, an overwhelming majority of those who responded did not believe that parents should have a majority but wanted teachers to have greater representation. Therefore, that was a devious response by the Minister who knows that he is on weak ground and is trying to devalue legitimate arguments which were put to him to express a different view.
The issue is crucial. Knowing that we would soon be dealing with the Bill on Report, in the few weeks since the Committee finished, I have taken the trouble to ask parents and teachers in my constituency what they felt about the Bill. The Minister will be surprised to hear that I stressed certain positive concessions which he made. The recent exchange between him and the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) confirms that opting out is not a component of the Bill but will require separate legislation, which most of us expect to be in the Queen's Speech for the next Session of Parliament.
Allowing for that, I was surprised at the vehemence with which many parents said to me that they did not believe that the Bill would improve the effective running of schools. Indeed, they were concerned about its implications. These views were expressed by individuals, by groups of parents whom I met at their request at two schools in my constituency within the last two weeks and at forums which were well attended by genuinely concerned, intelligent parents who had a real interest. They expressed grave reservations about the Bill in general. They said repeatedly that they could accept aspects of the Bill but not on the basis of parents having an absolute majority; they believed that there had to be partnership.
The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside is entitled to his views and he can speak for his constituents, but he is not entitled to try to score points off me on the balance of representation. He has been anxious to persuade the public and his constituents that he has influenced the Government substantially and that the Bill is now acceptable. That is a legitimate position for him to take, but his constituents will have to make their own judgment.
My constituents are telling me that they are less than convinced that the Bill is acceptable in its present format. That is why they believe that the amendments proposed today would improve it. I am serious when I say that the amendments would improve the Bill sufficiently for me to vote for the Third Reading, though not because I think that school boards are the right way forward. I repeat that what was promised in the Conservative manifesto seemed to me to be the right way forward, which was to give powers to reconstituted school councils. In those circumstances, some of the powers in the Bill could have been properly and legitimately attached to school councils. That would have been a popular and radical reform as

opposed to a reform which is motivated by the Minister's ideology and which paves the way for a development in education which is resented.
What the Minister promised when he first published the proposals has been substantially modified. No doubt the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside will claim credit for that, but the Minister's views have not been modified one iota. To the extent that he can extend the powers within the Bill, he will; to the extent that he cannot, he intends to bring forward new legislation in the next Session of Parliament to enable him to do so. At the end of the day the crunch is not whether people trust the Bill but that they do not trust the Minister because he is not trustworthy on this issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the word slipped out without the hon. Gentleman realising it and that he would want to withdraw it.

Mr. Bruce: I take your rebuke, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I may rephrase it more delicately. My constituents know that the Minister remains committed to proposals which he published before the Bill came forward and that he will not relent in future from seeking to implement those powers. For those reasons, they have no confidence in the Bill because they know that it is a step in a process which fundamentally they are likely to reject, and on which they have made clear their views.
The amendments are central to the crucial point in the Bill. Unless the Minister is prepared to accept that the parental majority should be modified and that staff representation should be increased, confidence in the working of school boards will not be extensive or widespread. I do not expect the Minister to respond constructively. I do not believe that he or his colleagues, who think that the Bill as it stands is likely to create a radical new dimension within Scottish education, are correct.
My constituents are substantially satisfied with the way in which the schools in their area work and with the relationship which they have with teachers. Although there are aspects on which they would like to have more power, which I support, they do not support the powers proposed in the Bill. I support the amendments. If the Minister seeks to reject them, I will be unable to support the Bill in its entirety.

Mr. Graham: I spent nine years on Strathclyde regional council. During that time I went frequently to school councils. I was always impressed by the debates. When there were votes, the councillors divided not on parent/teacher lines but on issues, and the weight of argument won the day.
I support the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). It is sensible to proceed on the basis that if the Government are keen to have parental involvement, they should also want the involvement of teachers and other people. It should be a cohesive group so that when it is discussing problems concerning schools and education there can be a full debate.
I have had experience of people attempting to take over school councils. Generally they have failed because they could not put forward a decent, sound argument. We will not see a deliberate takeover if there is a cohesive group.


The Minister is smiling. I have smiled at the Minister regularly because of some of the nonsense in the Bill. This is so serious that there is no smile on my face now. I am angry because the Government did not take advantage of a golden opportunity to reform school councils. I do not claim that school councils were perfect. There were many faults. But if the faults had been removed we might have had a better system than the Government have proposed.
The Government's attitude is that school teachers are the enemy. We should bear in mind that it is the teachers who are educating our young people to take the country hopefully into a better world. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.
It is incredible that the Government will not allow so many people who have children at school to play a part in school boards because they are in education authorities. In Strathclyde alone, more than 50,000 people are employed by the regional council. I have seen examples of school teachers playing an admirable role in school councils. It is lamentable and disgraceful and shows a lack of talent to take those people away from making a major contribution to their children's education at school. Their experience can be invaluable, whether as a parent or as a teacher, yet the Government will deny such opportunities.
I believe that the Minister received a copy of a survey carried out by Bishopton primary school which clearly showed that the majority of parents were opposed to the Government's proposals for parental involvement and the whole school board scenario. I remind the Minister that that area is not particularly a Labour stronghold. A Tory was returned in a recent district election, so I can assure the Minister that it is not a hot bed of radicalism. It is an area which might support the wetter instincts of the Conservative party, but the people opposed the Government's proposals for school boards. I am sure that the majority of those people would have liked to have seen some effort to improve and develop school councils and to encourage them to play a more meaningful role. If the Government have sufficient funds for schools, we should have parental involvement so that our children might be better educated. We should not be squandering valuable time and finance.
I am convinced that there will be a short surge of interest when we establish the school boards, but I bet anyone in the House that, in a couple of years' time, there will be no school boards in many schools because the parents will be sick of them and will leave it to the teachers and kids to get on with the business. I am not at all hopeful for school boards because I believe that they will become small in number and will eventually disappear.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am almost prepared to take on that bet with the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham). Perhaps we can have a word afterwards about the stake that he might be prepared to put on it.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point. The experience of school councils in my part of Scotland has not been of division on any lines, certainly not on the basis of party politics or professional background, whether teacher or parent. The decisions taken by those school councils were reached through consensus and on the merits of the arguments and I hope that that will continue to be the case. That will be the case in most areas because

those people who wish to become involved will do so in the best interests of education and of the children attending the schools.
I have my doubts about the matter and my hon. Friend the Minister knows that I still have reservations that any one group should form a majority on the boards. I strongly support the proposal that the parental group should be the largest single group, but I part company with my hon. Friend on the question whether parents should necessarily have a majority. None the less, I understand my hon. Friend's arguments and those put forward by the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, which strongly supports a parental majority. It is not worth getting too worked up about the matter for the very reason that I have given, that there will not be division along particular lines, so, although I believe that my hon. Friend is wrong, I shall not oppose him on this matter.
However, I am most anxious about teacher representation. My hon. Friend knows my views on that, but I do not believe that the proposals recommend a sufficient number of teachers, particularly in respect of smaller schools. I was not the only Committee member to hold those views, although I felt particularly strongly about the matter. My hon. Friend said that he would reconsider the matter. I should be much happier if he would assure us that he will agree to increase teacher representation on school boards.

Mr. Salmond: I wish to give a brief welcome to this group of amendments, particularly amendment No. 9, which puts forward the case for community representatives. It raises a particularly interesting argument because it involves a constituency of electors which includes both teachers and parents and is worthy of the Minister's serious consideration.
I want to take up the main point—the balance on the schools board between parents and other representative groups. I share the concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, although I part company with the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), as I believe that the issue goes to the heart of the anxieties of many people in Scotland about this measure. The nub of the concern is the fear that an unrepresentative minority and a determined clique of vested interests will attempt to seize control of the school board and, therefore, will still have substantial influence —through, for example, the vetoing of the headmaster's spending plans or the presence of parent representatives on the appointments committee—over children's education and matters that were part of the ceiling powers in the Minister's original proposals.
If parents did not have an absolute majority on a school board, that would remove many of the concerns because the school board would have to progress by consensus and take into account the views of parents, teachers, co-opted members, and, I hope, community representatives. The school board could still exert its considerable influence over those key areas, but only when it was operating through a consensus of its members. If clause 2(2) is left as it is now, with an absolute majority, there will be grave concern that a determined minority of parents may seize control of a school board.
The Minister takes an interesting view of the various responses that he has received to the consultative exercise. He has received probably the most clear rebuff of any Scottish Office Minister in recent times as a result of the first consultation exercise on this measure. There were


7,600 responses, which showed no enthusiasm for a parental majority. The report of Education Alert, showing that about 78 per cent. of the sample were opposed to the idea of a parent majority, has already been mentioned. The Minister dismisses that out of hand, as he is wont to do. His reaction to the various rebuffs that he has received has been to attempt to rubbish the questions asked.
I clearly remember being on a BBC television programme with the Minister when the studio audience voted overwhelmingly against his proposals. Only two people in the audience were in favour of his argument. The Minister said that the wrong question was being asked. He then proceeded to set the question to be put to the audience and, lo and behold, still only two people came to his support. It is a remarkable argument. The Minister may wish to intervene to correct my recollection of the numbers. I concede that there may have been more—perhaps three or four—but there was a substantial majority against the Minister's proposal, even as he phrased it. The House will have to treat with great caution the Minister's attempts to rubbish clear indications of the force of Scottish worry about an absolute parental majority on school boards as somehow being an inappropriate sample asked the wrong question. Quite clearly the Minister does not even pay attention to answers to his own questions.
7.30 pm
When the Minister replies to the debate, he will have to tell the House whether he will pay attention to the serious concerns being expressed by the vast majority of Scottish Members about the school board proposals. Will he make some concession to the points that we are putting forward on behalf of our constituents or will he rely on the majority in the recesses of this place, the "Morris gun" majority, and make no concessions whatever? That is the fundamental choice that the Minister must make when he replies to the worries expressed on this group of amendments. I await with interest the Minister's reply.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) place such emphasis on the views of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council. In another context Conservative Members like to cast doubts on whether bodies with rather grand-sounding names speak for the people for whom they purport to speak. I would question how many parents, far less teachers, the Scottish Parent Teacher Council speaks for in my constituency. The representations that I have received about the Bill have not been in line with the submission from the council on which the hon. Member for Eastwood placed such value.
There have been many representations about the Bill, but at this stage it is largely a matter of disinterest and slight suspicion rather than active hostility. Those who have been in touch with me have expressed opposition to what is seen to underlie the Bill. They have expressed concern about the idea of establishing a parental majority in bodies that are to have the proposed powers.
In line with their attitude on many pieces of mischievous legislation introduced by the Government, the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland will have the good sense to have little to do with the Bill. The

Bill will not have the effect that the Minister hopes, and it will not lead people down the philosophical road that he intends us to follow.
I agree with the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) that the vast majority of people in Scotland are well satisfied with the way that schools are run, with the quality of the teaching staff and the relationships between parents, teachers and communities. For that reason the Scottish people will not come forward in large numbers to seize power. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) who said that in the majority of communities interest will subside fairly rapidly. He was also right to say that within school councils, as in any sensible organisation, members divide not along parent-teacher lines but on the basis of the argument. At least to some extent that will be a damp squib.
The underlying fear expressed by hon. Members in all parts of the House is the potential that exists for the highly motivated pressure group to take over a school board and to use it for its own purposes. That fear keeps coming through and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent such a takeover. A school does not have to be taken over by a politically motivated pressure group seeking to take the school down the road which in his more visionary moments the Minister has in mind—opting out and that kind of nonsense. It might be a group that has a stake in some bitter local controversy that in some way impinges upon the school. It might be a religious pressure group.
There are all sorts of pressure groups which at a given moment might think it a splendid idea to get three or four people on to a school board to exercise disproportionate control over the affairs of that school. Surely it cannot be healthy to legislate for such a possibility. If the Government are interested in the good of Scottish education, as opposed to some rather confused ideological point, they will take the Bill away and think about it again.

Mr. Salmond: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that with the exception of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) all the Conservative Back Benchers have opted out of the debate?

Mr. Wilson: If I had been called to speak slightly earlier I would have observed that nobody other than the hon. Member for Eastwood had opted in. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) made a brief appearance. He appears to be the acceptable face of Toryism in his constituency, but for the time being I shall not put it any higher than that.
My final point is in support of the amendment that calls for community representatives. The legislation as drawn takes a narrow view of schools and their place in the community. It does not accept that many people who are neither parents nor teachers have an active and wholly proper interest in the working of schools. Many school activities provide opportunities for such people to participate, and that is where the interests of the wider community can be seen in the functioning of schools.
One aspect of the legislation that deserves comment is that for the first time in the long tradition of Scottish education the right of the churches to be represented on education bodies is to be abolished. Community representatives would not specifically redress that, but they would at least be an avenue through which—if it was the wish of the people electing community representatives


—the churches could be represented. The same argument could be made on behalf of various other groups that are presently disqualified from participation by the very narrow format of the Bill. 
For a school with 1,000 pupils to have a so-called representative body on which there are five parent members, one staff member, and three co-opted members is far too narrow and selective. The whole idea that there must be a parental majority is misplaced. In the light of our electoral experience, the Opposition have great faith in the good sense of the Scottish people. We should not be too afraid of what the Minister is proposing. He is a zealot, but fortunately he does not have an army of zealots to lead. That has been the experience on other issues and it will be the experience on this one as well.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I am disappointed that the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has disappeared because I was about to make a nice little joke. However, I had to chop it because the language of the Opposition gets very dangerous. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was the only acceptable face of Toryism, but that may not be the case.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was corrected for calling the Minister untrustworthy. I think that perhaps that was a little severe. The Minister cannot be trusted on this issue. I hope that that expression is acceptable. None of us trusts him on this issue. We know what he proposes and what the future holds. I know about the discussions that he is having in my constituency and about his opt-out suggestions to groups from the schools in my area. We know what it is all about and I shall be glad to hear the Minister deny that he has been having such discussions. We should like to be told whether he has been having them and whether he is encouraging groups in my constituency to think about opting out. He should be very careful about what he says because I may know all about his discussions.
The Minister made an appalling attack on the people who produced the analysis of the views of the randomly selected 435 people who answered the questionnaire, and he assumed that the figures were wrong. However, the facts are that 78 per cent. said no to an overall parental majority and 87 per cent. said that additional teachers should be elected. That was later corroborated in the careful analysis of control of expenditure. Eighty-three per cent. said no to total control of expenditure by the board, but 66 per cent. said there should be consultation on expenditure.
The figures ring true. People want consultation, not domination, which is what the Bill is about. The Government seek to create groups that will allow this peculiar, reactionary Minister and the Secretary of State to reverse the democratic history of Scottish education. This is especially dangerous because it involves a small group of people. In all our social and political life there are groups of activists. We are in politics because we were among the activists. Of course, we are not completely representative of the mass of people, who may be active in other directions.
Any group of people who involve themselves in a social, political, cultural or educational organisation do so because they are keen. Parents who involve themselves in education do so because they are keen on their children. By definition, those who involve themselves most are those

who are interested in their children's future. But that is not necessarily the sort of people with which to constitute a board. A board should be able to take overall decisions for all the pupils in school, which a group of parents would tend not to be able to do. They are certainly motivated. In four or five years' time my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) may well be interested in the motivation of parents with children going to school. We should all congratulate him on a recent happy event. I hope that, as I would wish the boards to be, it was the result of partnership and consultation.
There is a group of people who, by definition, are concerned with all the children—especially with those who are not doing so well. Others may be concerned with high-flying children, but teachers have to be concerned with all pupils, above all those who require special care. Majority decisions of the council should be taken by teachers. If there is to be an imbalance of numbers, it should be in favour of the teachers, not activist parents. Parents and teachers say—almost everyone says—that this is so, but the Minister and the Secretary of State disagree. Yet the case is manifest.
The purpose of the Bill is not to extend parental involvement but to create a parental hegemony. Nothing could be more dangerous. The Government's proposition should be taken back; the Minister should listen to the voices of parents and teachers. He should establish genuine involvement. I am entirely in favour of boards being involved, but it is dangerous to give a majority of parents powers over expenditure and all other matters. We know about the sort of people the Minister is concerned with. We reject the motivation behind this Bill, which is why we shall vote against it. I ask the Minister to reconsider while there is still time and to do something about this matter in another place.

Mr. Ernie Ross: One thing has been obvious in this short debate. This is the last overspill of the bitterness that the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State feel towards teachers for the duffing-up that the latter gave them last year. That explains the Minister's failure to respond on this issue. The Bill is an attempt to remove some of the powers that the Minister alleged teachers have. Whole sections of the Bill reflect the Government's bitterness towards the teachers because of the way in which the teachers exposed the Government's failure to support education in Scotland.
7.45 pm
The original Forsyth proposals have had to be amended because the people to whom they were directed did not want the powers. The Minister has boasted of how he has listened to the parents when making his changes. But whenever parents are asked about this matter, in television studios, in opinion polls, in writing or through the schools council system, they have made it clear that they want changes to be made to this part of the school board proposals. The Minister and his colleagues have set their minds against those views, however. As I said, that is due to the Government's bitterness.
As other hon. Members have said, teachers are the one group in society to whom the Minister and his colleagues have failed to accord professional respect. They imagine that teachers are responsible for everything that they think is wrong with Scottish education. It is extraordinary, for instance, that in 1988 teachers with pupils at a school


cannot stand for election to that school's board. It is remarkable, too, that if those same teachers happen to be parents of children at a school they are classed with two other groups in society—lunatics and criminals. That is another example of the Minister's bitterness. At this late stage, with the overwhelming mass of opinion in Scotland against the Bill, the Minister is still not prepared to move, even when his hon. Friends suggest that he should make some concessions.
The Minister still has his hang-up: a determination to discipline the teachers. He tried to give parents the right to discipline them by giving them the responsibility for sacking teachers—and the parents did not want that. Now Forsyth's final revenge and failure to acknowledge the professionalism of Scottish teachers is to deny them even half the rights that parents enjoy on school boards——

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Perhaps it will enable the hon. Gentleman not to develop his argument if I point out that teachers are not eligible now to stand as candidates in regional elections. So the suggestion that we are putting them in the same position as prisoners and lunatics, as he emotively put it——

Mr. Ross: Criminals.

Mr. Forsyth: Prisoners would be a better word than criminals, since not all criminals are in prison.
Secondly, teachers are unable to stand for election as parents only in schools in which they teach. They can stand as parents in schools other than those in which they teach, so the limitation on their ability to stand as candidates is considerably less than their ability to stand and find themselves elected to the education committees of regional authorities.

Mr. Ross: That does not change what I said. The proposals do not allow teachers who have pupils at a school to stand for election to that school's board. In that sense the Minister puts them in the same category as criminals, and if he knows of criminals who are not in gaol I suggest that he immediately gets in touch with his colleagues in the Government and advises them of where they are. They are not in the Chamber right now, certainly, as the Minister is almost alone on the Conservative Benches. The Minister should say where these criminals are so that they can be taken into custody. We cannot have criminals loose in the land.
The Minister has emphasised my point by his determination to extract a penal reform from the teaching profession, which he does not like. I do not know why he does not like it—perhaps he had a bad experience as a youngster. He certainly seems to have had some bad experiences and he seems to blame the teaching profession.
To bring the matter back into perspective, the Minister does not and cannot deny my point that he is trying to pursue unfair and discriminatory proposals. He must know that public opinion in Scotland is overwhelmingly against him. If he really wants to claim, as he has throughout the debate, that he listens to those to whom he seeks to give more representation—the parents—he should listen to the parents on this issue and accept our amendments. Only then will we believe that he is not trying

to extract what I began my speech by describing as "the Forsyth revenge" for the duffing-up that the teachers gave him last year.

Mrs. Fyfe: In the hope and belief that even this Minister can sometimes listen to reason—[HON. MEMBERS: "Please be sensible, Maria."] Well, I say that because earlier the Minister proposed that when there were adult pupils at a school, their parents—"the grannies" as he put it in Committee—should have a vote. However, he then thought better of it and I believe that the Government dropped that proposal. That is why I say that even this Minister can sometimes listen to common sense.
I do not want to make a speech, but simply to pose some questions. I hope that the Minister will answer at least some of them because they arise from our discussion this evening. What makes the Government so sure that enough parents will seek election and will keep on doing so? Are the Government not worried about the outcome for schools if, as is predicted by some of my hon. Friends, the whole thing eventually collapses because of lack of interest? What will the Government do if our warning proves correct and if, because of lack of interest, some nutcase groups attempt to take over? As has been suggested, that will rarely happen because in most cases the common sense of parents will prevail. Nevertheless, it is a danger that we must be aware of and it could happen. What are the Government proposing to do about it?
What about the fact that parents will be allowed to comment on matters such as curriculum and teaching methods, and expect answers from the head teacher? Does that not open up the danger that some highly influential parents—we talked earlier about the possibility of lawyers, doctors, university professors and army officers having an undue amount of influence on such decisions—may throw their weight about in a way in which other parents might not be able to cope with?
Why is there absolutely nothing in the proposals about ensuring that the education of girl pupils is given much more equal weight than it has ever been? We still face prejudice over the education of girls, who are refused access to certain courses, or discouraged from taking them. The proposals blindly ignore that area of educational provision.
In conclusion, why does the Minister think that he has a right to impose this legislation on people who clearly do not want it?

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Several points arise from the debate, but I should like to begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) to the Opposition Front Bench.
The issues raised fall into four categories. The first relates to the position of teachers who are also parents in some schools. This point was raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). As I explained to him in my intervention, being able to stand for election for school boards and have a say in the running of schools is a considerable step forward on the current position because at present teachers are unable to stand for election to the education authority. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members, would have recognised that.
The thrust of these amendments is to take the matter further and to allow staff in particular schools to stand as parent representatives or as teacher representatives. For


the reasons that I have spelled out in some detail in Committee, I do not regard that as desirable because it could result in the school boards becoming homogeneous.
The second issue raised was parental majorities and why the Government are insistent on having a parental majority——

Mr. Buchan: I know why.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that he knows why and I am sure that he is better qualified to know why than are most Opposition Members. It is because the Government are committed to parental involvement in schools and because we see the boards as providing parents with a forum and platform in the education system so that they can express their view. We recognise the argument for partnership, which is why there are places on the boards for representatives from the community and the teaching staff to be elected or co-opted. However, the boards will be the parents' forum in education.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) considered partnership, but he should take account of the broader picture. Through staff meetings, meetings which take place in school and through their professional bodies, teachers have the ability to make their input. Parents have no such ability and that is why we are providing that they should form the majority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) argued, in doing so we have the wholehearted support and enthusiasm of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, which was dismissed by Opposition Members. Instead, they mentioned partisan groups such as Education Alert and others which have consistently opposed the proposals and which have produced——

Mr. Salmond: rose——

Mr. Forsyth: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
Those groups have produced a poll which, to say the least, is highly questionable. The hon. Member for Gordon endorsed that poll, in contrast to the MORI and System 3 polls.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: That is the second time that the Minister has used the word "partisan". I should like him to explain what he means. Does he mean "partisan" because those groups do not agree with him or is he implying a sinister motive? Those groups represent parents who have a genuine interest and who have sought other people's views. Will he not acknowledge that?

Mr. Forsyth: It is a self-appointed group of people who have set themselves up to put forward their perfectly legitimate point of view, opposing the school boards. What I criticise is the hon. Gentleman asking me to be influenced by questionnaires that purport to have a random sample but which, on examination of their own data, show that 17 per cent. of the parents are also teachers——

Mr. Salmond: rose——

Mr. Forsyth: No, I shall not give way. I am answering the point raised by the hon. Member for Gordon—[Interruption.] Such data do not prove that the survey was representative. If the hon. Member for Gordon thinks that

17 per cent. of parents are teachers, he knows even less about education than I had imagined. The questions in the questionnaire were poorly designed. They included:
Do you think additional staff should be elected?
and
A Board may apply to the Local Authority for, and be granted, extra powers without consulting or advising the school's other parents or teachers. Do you agree?
Those are hardly neutral questions.
By way of information I should add that under the provisions of clause 12 the statement made in the latter question is completely unfounded and untrue, as the hon. Member for Gordon will know from his experience in Committee. Therefore, I am entitled to make that point.

Mr. Salmond: rose——

Mr. Forsyth: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The third point raised related to community members for whom the hon. Member for Dumbarton sought to argue. We touched briefly on this issue in Committee when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) argued that we were removing the right of Churches to be represented on school boards. There is provision, through co-option, for that to be realised. I am puzzled by the idea of community members because the electorate would not consist of the community. It would consist of parents and staff. That hardly seems to be an extension of democracy given that the same people, the parents and staff, will have the opportunity to elect representatives in their own way. The community can be adequately and more effectively represented through co-option as a result.
8 pm
It was also argued that we should define the structure of the school boards on the face of the Bill. I rejected that in Committee because it would bring in inflexibility. It would not enable us to consider questions like those my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) asked me to address, involving the numbers of teachers, or to do that in the light of experience. I can tell my right hon. Friend that we shall consult about the regulation.
I noted the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside made in Committee about providing additional teacher representation, particularly for schools of between 500 and 1,000 pupils. I have not forgotten that and I have been heavily influenced by his argument. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give a commitment tonight, because I would prefer to go through the consultation process prior to the regulations before I reach a conclusion. I do not want to make up my mind before I have heard what the teachers have to say.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: While thanking my hon. Friend for his comments, I must state that I was not referring simply to schools with between 500 and 1,000 pupils. He may have slipped up in that. I am concerned about schools with pupil numbers ranging from one to 500. We have one-pupil schools in some areas. It is important that there should be more than one teacher representative in some of the smaller schools.

Mr. Forsyth: That is a separate point. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind that the question of additional teacher representation would not apply in single-teacher schools. In schools with two teachers, the


second teacher would almost automatically be on the board. Three-teacher schools would have 90 or more pupils and that must be borne in mind.
The question of unrepresentative groups was also raised during the debate. We took on board the anxieties about those groups during the consultation process and in that connection the Bill contains a number of provisions, including the election of board members every two years and the requirement of the endorsement of the majority of parents voting in ballots where additional powers are sought. I believe that the ability for unrepresentative groups to take control has been diminished substantially. I could not help but note that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) adopted a position in conflict with a number of his colleagues when he argued that there would be no interest, while others argued that there would be great interest from unrepresentative groups.
I believe that the balance is right and I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 259.

Division No. 371]
[8.03 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dewar, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Dixon, Don


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dobson, Frank


Armstrong, Hilary
Doran, Frank


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Douglas, Dick


Ashton, Joe
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Barron, Kevin
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Battle, John
Eadie, Alexander


Beckett, Margaret
Eastham, Ken


Beggs, Roy
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bell, Stuart
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bermingham, Gerald
Faulds, Andrew


Bidwell, Sydney
Fearn, Ronald


Blair, Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Blunkett, David
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Boateng, Paul
Fisher, Mark


Boyes, Roland
Flannery, Martin


Bradley, Keith
Flynn, Paul


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Foster, Derek


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Foulkes, George


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Galbraith, Sam


Buchan, Norman
Galloway, George


Buckley, George J.
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Caborn, Richard
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Callaghan, Jim
George, Bruce


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Gould, Bryan


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Graham, Thomas


Clay, Bob
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Haynes, Frank


Coleman, Donald
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Henderson, Doug


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cousins, Jim
Holland, Stuart


Crowther, Stan
Home Robertson, John


Cryer, Bob
Hood, Jimmy


Cummings, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Darling, Alistair
Howells, Geraint


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Hoyle, Doug





Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Radice, Giles


Ingram, Adam
Redmond, Martin


Janner, Greville
Reid, Dr John


John, Brynmor
Richardson, Jo


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Kennedy, Charles
Rogers, Allan


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Rooker, Jeff


Kirkwood, Archy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lambie, David
Rowlands, Ted


Lamond, James
Ruddock, Joan


Leadbitter, Ted
Salmond, Alex


Leighton, Ron
Sedgemore, Brian


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sheerman, Barry


Lewis, Terry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Litherland, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Livsey, Richard
Short, Clare


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McFall, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McKelvey, William
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McLeish, Henry
Spearing, Nigel


Maclennan, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


McTaggart, Bob
Steinberg, Gerry


Madden, Max
Stott, Roger


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Strang, Gavin


Marek, Dr John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Turner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Vaz, Keith


Maxton, John
Wall, Pat


Meacher, Michael
Wallace, James


Meale, Alan
Walley, Joan


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wigley, Dafydd


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Winnick, David


Mowlam, Marjorie
Worthington, Tony


Mullin, Chris
Wray, Jimmy


Murphy, Paul
Young, David(Bolton SE)


Nellist, Dave



Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tellers for the Ayes:


O'Neill, Martin
Mrs. Maria Fyfe and Mr. John McAllion.


Pendry, Tom



Pike, Peter L.





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Alexander, Richard
Bowis, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Amess, David
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Amos, Alan
Brazier, Julian


Arbuthnot, James
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Ashby, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Aspinwall, Jack
Browne, John (Winchester)


Atkins, Robert
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Atkinson, David
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Buck, Sir Antony


Baldry, Tony
Burns, Simon


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butcher, John


Batiste, Spencer
Butler, Chris


Bellingham, Henry
Butterfill, John


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carrington, Matthew


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Carttiss, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Cartwright, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Boswell, Tim
Chope, Christopher






Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cope, Rt Hon John
Irvine, Michael


Couchman, James
Irving, Charles


Cran, James
Jack, Michael


Critchley, Julian
Jackson, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Janman, Tim


Curry, David
Jessel, Toby


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Devlin, Tim
Key, Robert


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kilfedder, James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dunn, Bob
Knapman, Roger


Durant, Tony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knowles, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evennett, David
Latham, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Farr, Sir John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Favell, Tony
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lightbown, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Peter


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Forth, Eric
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fox, Sir Marcus
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Franks, Cecil
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Freeman, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gardiner, George
Major, Rt Hon John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Malins, Humfrey


Gill, Christopher
Mans, Keith


Goodlad, Alastair
Maples, John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marland, Paul


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gow, Ian
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gregory, Conal
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Miller, Sir Hal


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mills, Iain


Grist, Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Ground, Patrick
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moate, Roger


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hanley, Jeremy
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndbum)
Mudd, David


Harris, David
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Michael


Hawkins, Christopher
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayward, Robert
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heddle, John
Page, Richard


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Paice, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Patnick, Irvine


Hill, James
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Pawsey, James


Holt, Richard
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hordern, Sir Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howard, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Powell, William (Corby)





Price, Sir David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Speller, Tony


Rathbone, Tim
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Redwood, John
Stern, Michael


Rhodes James, Robert
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Riddick, Graham
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Taylor, lan (Esher)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thorne, Neil


Rost, Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rowe, Andrew
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Walden, George


Ryder, Richard
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Watts, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wheeler, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)



Shersby, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Sims, Roger
Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Skeet, Sir Trevor



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 2, line 10, at end insert
`, and—

(i) an observer elected by the staff and students of the community education service in those schools which provide community education services; and
(ii) an observer elected by all registered mature students in secondary schools in which at least 5 per cent. of pupils are mature students undertaking Scottish Certificate of Education presentation courses.'
I direct the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to clause 14(1), which makes direct reference to a board's powers over the use of premises outside school hours, and which encourages their use by members of the community in which the school is situated. There is a glaring gap in the legislation because it does not show how a board can operate that recommendation and there is no mechanism in the Bill to establish the links between the community and the board.
The amendment attempts to fill that gap, and is especially important for those areas where community education centres are the schools themselves. I am thinking of rural areas, such as my constituency, where many of the primary and secondary schools are the community education centres. Some of the conurbations in Scotland have separate community education centres, as the hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) —parts of whose constituencies I used to represent—are aware. In rural constituencies the schools are those centres, although I believe that in the Lothian region certain community schools are seen as the flagships for the whole concept. I am thinking especially of Wester Hailes, Dean's school and Livingston, where the schools and the community education centres are one and the same.
There are different methods of management and administration within the various areas. For example, in the Grampian region the head teacher controls the day use of the school and the senior community education worker controls the evening use. In Lothian the norm is for a single head establishment. I do not want to join in the debate about which system is better or more favourable


because that is not the issue at stake. However, there is a genuine concern in schools in my area about how the school boards will link with community education. The Grampian head teachers' association has been discussing the matter and various bodies have suggested different ways in which that aim could be achieved, but no firm conclusion has been reached. Currently, the college councils in the Grampian region ensure that the community education sector has full representation.
One suggestion is that there should be a sub-committee of the board—a sort of users' committee—that would negotiate the allocation of space. Perhaps one third of the board should be co-opted members, although that would not be effective in small schools such as Speyside high school in Aberlour in my area, where the school board will probably comprise no more than seven members. The sub-committee would, therefore, be very small and it would place an undue burden on members of the school board who were asked to become involved in a users' committee.
The first part of the amendment seeks to give the community education service direct access to the deliberations of the board. The Minister will have noticed that I am asking only for observer status and not for voting rights. The suggestion was that it could participate in the discussions and, perhaps, iron out problems, thereby saving later confrontation. I am seeking a straightforward involvement for people who would be democratically elected. It is not a major amendment, but I hope that the Minister will treat it seriously.
The second part of the amendment deals with particular situations in some of our schools. Adults are increasingly being encouraged to return to school as full-time pupils, particularly to study for Scottish Certificate of Education presentation work at O-grade and highers. When we discuss school education, there is the danger of thinking that pupils are always children. In many areas there is an increasing number of adult pupils who return to school. We should welcome that trend because it reflects the idea that education is a life-long process. It has benefited many people because they have gained a great deal of confidence and self-respect in later life by managing to achieve success in examinations.
I have spoken to head teachers in my constituency where that practice is well advanced, particularly at Speyside high school, and it seems that the schools have benefited greatly from the involvement of adult pupils. It has been suggested that young pupils who might not find a subject riveting and dynamic suddenly find that when adults are excited about that subject their enthusiasm spills into the classroom and the youngsters benefit from having older people working with them.
Adult education is also important at a time of high employment. No doubt the Minister will tell us that unemployment is declining in Scotland, but it is declining gradually and there is still a high and unacceptable level of unemployment in Grampian. Education is obviously beneficial to adults because it can help them to start a new career. At a time of declining school rolls it is beneficial for the schools concerned to have an increasing number of adult students participating in their daily life.
The second section of the amendment would provide an opportunity for those people to become involved in the

school board. I have said that their observer status would exist only when at least 5 per cent. of the pupils registered in the school are mature students undertaking SCE presentation courses. I do not think that any school in Scotland falls into that category, but the provision would put down a marker within the Bill. I hope that the Minister will support the amendment or give us his opinion of the community education service and the involvement of mature students who return to school.

Mr. Norman Hogg: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, and on behalf of the official Opposition, I strongly support her moderate and reasonable proposals. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to what she said, because her amendment deals with something for which the Bill does not provide. It is an oversight by us all that we have not dealt with mature students in secondary schools.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I am happy to support the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) particularly in regard to mature students in secondary schools. The intake of mature students was pioneered at the north end of Glasgow at St. Augustine's secondary school. It was very successful and those who were involved in it found that the presence of adults in classrooms which normally contained pupils of 14 and 15 years old had a settling effect on the pupils. That intake of adult students was taken up in one of the adjoining comprehensive schools, Colston secondary school. It is a pity that that school is under the hammer and is about to be closed. I do not wish to go into that argument as I have been through it before. The Minister saved Paisley grammar school, and it is a pity he could not save Colston secondary school which has an excellent reputation for mature students.
In constituencies such as mine, where unemployment is very high, some unemployed people feel that their only chance of getting out of the trap is to go back to school.
It says a lot for men and women who have brought up their families and who feel that they have missed out on educational opportunities, or did not have those opportunities, that they want to get back into the classroom. Like the hon. Lady, I feel that it would do no harm if those pupils had a say in the running of the school. After all, if they undertake a commitment to a course which sometimes takes two or three years, they have every right to know what is going on in that school.
My only criticism of the amendment, and I mean it as a constructive criticism, is that instead of being observers the pupils should have full voting rights. If we ask people to participate in the democratic process and to give up their time voluntarily, it would be a bit galling for them to have to sit through meetings without the full powers that everyone else had.
The community education service does an excellent job throughout the country, and increasing numbers of people are turning to it. I have often said to officials in the community education services that they are so enthusiastic that sometimes they overlook what other educational departments are doing. At least amendment No. 62 is one way of making sure that one hand knows what the other is doing. I am certainly happy to support the amendment.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I begin by saying how much I agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) until he urged me to support the amendment.


However, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that their intentions in supporting the amendment can be realised through the Bill.
It is obvious from the amendment that the hon. Lady had some difficulty in defining precisely with whom she was concerned. I have given that some consideration. If she looks at clause 6(3) and (10), she will see that a school board will have powers to establish committees—with up to one third of their membership being people who are not members of the board—which can look at particular areas of concern. That mechanism would go a long way to meeting the circumstances to which the hon. Lady rightly draws the attention of the House. Clause 6(10) provides that boards will be able to invite people to meetings as they consider appropriate, so there would be an opportunity for individual boards to follow the hon. Lady's recommendations.
The hon. Member for Springburn thought that people should have full voting rights and should be able to participate in all the deliberations of the committee. The Bill provides for co-option which could bring in representatives of adult learners or other people within the categories which the hon. Lady had in mind. Of course they would enjoy full membership and full voting rights on the board.
Therefore, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment and to take comfort from the fact that the Government endorse the thinking behind the amendment, but we believe that the amendment is not necessary, and, because of the difficulties of definition, it could be more restrictive than the provisions in the Bill.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I thank the hon. Members for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) and for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) for their support of the amendment. The hon. Member for Springburn felt that there should automatically be voting rights. I was trying to guard against a situation in which a mature student could also be eligible as a parent member of the board. That is why I chose observer status. I was conscious of the fact that an additional restriction might be placed on choosing as observers people who were mature students because they had already sought the right to represent through their parental involvement.
I am disappointed that the Minister cannot support the amendment, although he supported its sentiments. It is a probing amendment to establish the Government's thinking. There was little reference in Committee to the community education service and the role of mature students—-two aspects that needed airing during the debate.
I mentioned clause 6(3) on committees because some of my constituents believe that this measure will not serve the purposes of small schools. Speyside high school has a population of less than 500 and a committee would not necessarily be as effective as we would hope. The Minister has assured us that the Government are keen to have these sections of the community involved. I shall ensure that his comments are drawn to the attention of people in my constituency and elsewhere and will ask them carefully to note his comments. I hope that people will become

involved as mature students or as members of the community education service. Given those sentiments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Norman Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 3, line 22, leave out
`instructors and auxiliaries involved in education'
and insert 'and support staff.
The amendment is designed to do two things. The first is to improve the Bill's wording. The expression
instructors and auxiliaries involved in education
is a clumsy way of describing those persons who are not teachers in the accepted and statutory sense of the word, but who work in the classroom. Secondly, there are others involved in education in a school who are neither teachers, instructors nor auxiliaries but are very much involved in education, in the sense that they work in support of the professional staff and, therefore, have a place in the arrangements for membership of a board. I do not understand why they should be left out.
We discussed this matter at some length in Committee and I had hoped that we had persuaded the Minister that there was a clear case for doing something for janitors. I seem to recall that the debate turned on the question of janitors. I could say that amendment No. 43 is all about "janny power", which will give the Hansard writer something to think about. School staff who are not primarily education staff but without whom a school would not operate as an educational institution should have a proper place in the scheme of things. In many schools the school janitor is an extremely influential person. I do not mind saying that, in my experience as a Member of Parliament, the janitors at some schools in my constituency are more important to me than the head teachers because the janitors open schools on Friday nights when I turn up to meet my adoring constituents.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that all staff in a school are treated as equals in respect of the school board. This would create a good atmosphere among those who work in the school and leave the staff free to choose whomsoever they wish to represent their interests on the school board. Everyone would be part of a team designed to promote the education of children. That is why the amendment is right. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I support the amendment. For some time, I was a full-time trade union officer representing school staff, including janitors—and I know the excellent work that they do. Schools would not he able to function properly without those staff whom, for want of a better expression, we would call manual workers.
There is some snobbery in the Minister's thinking——

Mr. Michael Forsyth: indicated dissent.

Mr. Martin: The Minister shakes his head. I hope that he will prove me wrong. From time to time, he has made utterances about industrial relations, especially in the public services, and he has asked why we should have "them and us" attitudes. This legislation clearly sets out a "them and us" attitude. Why should the only staff on the boards be those with academic qualifications and school auxiliaries?
Anyone who has been connected with a school knows that the back-up staff are important—cleaners, janitors,


cooks and those who serve meals. In large schools there are maintenance staff, swimming pool attendants and green-keepers who look after the playing fields. If the school board can make decisions without those staff having an input, we could land in all sorts of problems. A board could decide the times at which school started, lunch was eaten and school closed. If such decisions are made without manual workers having an input, there could be disruption and those people might feel left out. If a school is to work properly, every member of staff must be involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) is right in moving the amendment, which will give manual workers a feeling that they have a say in the running of their school.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: There is no snobbery involved; on the contrary, the discussion in Committee revealed that there was some common ground. The difficulties arise in terms of the practicality of achieving our purpose.
The amendment is not entirely satisfactory. The term "support staff" does not get us much further than the definition in the Bill, with which I freely acknowledge I am not 100 per cent. satisfied. I said in Committee that I would consider it. I must confess that we have failed to come up with an alternative. Perhaps unusually, I ask the Opposition to join us in the quest for a suitable term. I am prepared to consider the tabling of an amendment in another place if we can find the right formula.
I would point out to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) that it is perfectly possible for educational staff to serve on boards and I recognise that they will have an important contribution to make. I should be the last person to argue that the janitor does not have a central role to play—especially when I consider the size of my majority in my constituency. Janitors are extremely important and influential people and we want them to play a part. That can be done under clauses 6(3) and 6(10). I do not see that it is necessary to extend the definition to include all staff. The difficulty does not arise in larger schools, but in small schools the staff as a whole could conceivably outnumber the teachers and there may be only one place for a teacher representative. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) does not seem to have addressed himself to that consideration.
I accept that the definition in the Bill is difficult. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth said, in Committee we had a long discussion about janitors and I concluded that the janitor who occasionally coached a football team was involved in education. I cannot accept the amendment because the words "support staff''——

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I accept that in small schools —especially those in the Highlands—there may be only one teacher and many more back-up staff. However, the Minister should acknowledge that some comprehensive schools in thickly populated areas employ more manual workers than some factories. That should be borne in mind.

Mr. Forsyth: It should indeed. The hon. Gentleman makes his point, but such schools will have larger school boards and there will be more opportunity for co-option. My point is that the rural areas—not just the Highlands

—have schools at which more support staff would be eligible for election to the single teacher's place than teachers. Therein lies our difficulty.
The term "support staff" seems to me at least as vague and possibly more so than the phrase "anxiliaries involved in education" and there would probably be as many problems with interpretation. Therefore, I would ask the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth to withdraw the amendment. If he has any further thoughts—indeed, if any hon. Member or anyone outside has further thoughts —we shall be delighted to consider the matter further.

Mr. Norman Hogg: I have often listened to Ministers thanking hon. Members for their comments and saying, "I shall write to the hon. Gentleman." On this occasion, the reverse applies. I shall think about the matter further and write to the Minister. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

TERMS OF OFFICE ETC.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 3, line 43, after 'held', insert
`, subject to subsection (6A) below,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 45.

Mr. Forsyth: The amendments arise from discussions in Committee in which I allowed my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) to persuade me that casual vacancies should be filled within three months. The hon. Member for Cumbernald and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) will recall that I agreed in principle that it was anomalous that under the Bill as drafted the board could, in theory, lose its parental majority for nearly two years. We accepted that the arguments of tidiness that had led to the original requirement for casual vacancies to be filled at the time of the biennial elections were not strong enough to withstand the argument of principle. Unfortunately, my generosity had unforeseen consequences.

Mr. Donald Dewar: The Minister is repenting.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman does me a disservice. I am not repenting. I am merely having to propose the amendments to undo the difficulty that was created. People elected at by-elections serve out the term of office of the member whom they replaced. As the Bill stands, it is possible for a person to be elected at a by-election only to face a term election in a matter of days. If it was simply a case of trading one anomaly for a lesser anomaly, it might not be so bad. The difficulty is that the prospect of only a short period of service before a term election might dissuade candidates from standing. If a vacancy was for a parental seat, that might trigger the sequence of events that leads to the disestablishment of the board under clause 20.
We therefore tabled the amendments, which together provide that someone elected at a by-election will be sure of serving at least three months and possibly six. The spirit of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside is secure, but the difficulties are circumvented.

Mr. Norman Hogg: I am in a difficult position. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) presented himself in Committee as something of an unofficial Opposition. In his absence, and on his behalf, we accept the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 45, in page 3, line 44, at end insert—
'(6A) Where a vacancy for a parent or staff member arises because of the resignation or removal from office of a member whose term of office is to expire within 6 months from the date of such resignation or removal from office no by-election need be held under subsection (6) above.'—[Mr. Michael Forsyth]

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 47, at end insert
'provided that their remaining term of office is less than two years.'
I shall not detain the House unduly, but some concern has been expressed on this matter. Under the Bill as drafted, a member of the board, whether elected or co-opted, can serve for four years. The amendment seeks to limit the term that he can serve after he has ceased to be eligible to two years. It is a compromise. It allows continuity but acknowledges a difficulty. In certain circumstances a member could be co-opted to the board when he had a legitimate interest—for example, he might have a child at the school. After that eligibility had been removed, however, he could continue to have substantial influence, especially on a small school board, for a significant number of years.
The Minister may say that when people elect a person to the board they should be aware of the likely change in that person's eligibility or that they should elect the person because they feel that he has something to contribute over and above the fact that he has a child at the school. However, the Minister should accept that the period of a parent's direct involvement and interest in a school is very much confined to the period for which he has a child at that school. Suppose that somebody begins to serve on a school board in his child's last term at school. Four years later, he may still be voting on issues affecting the school even though he has long ceased to have any direct concern about the outcome. The Minister should recognise that parents fear that on small boards that could give someone with no real responsibility to accept the consequences of the board's decisions a substantial degree of influence for a substantial period after he has ceased to have a direct interest.
The amendment is self-explantatory. I hope that the Minister will accept the legitimate concern about the provisions as drafted. I hope that he will accept the amendment and, if he does not, I hope that he will address himself to the problem. Four years is a long term to serve when one no longer has children at the school and people could certainly serve for four years under the Bill as drafted.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am convinced by the hon. Gentleman's eloquence and I am happy to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

QUALIFICATION AND DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 4, line 15, leave out
`A minor may be a'
and insert
'A young person may be a co-opted'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 17, in page 4, line 15, leave out 'A minor' and insert
`a pupil of the school aged at least 16 years'.

Government amendment No. 47.

Mr. Forsyth: I recall the Committee discussion on this matter. The question revolved around whether it was appropriate for young people below the age of 16 to be co-opted on to school boards. In an effort to be as flexible as possible and to allow for as much local democracy as possible, the Bill as originally drafted would allow for minors to be co-opted.
The effect of Government amendment No. 46 is to substitute the words "young person" for "minor". In the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 a young person is defined as somebody between the ages of 16 and 18. The amendment would make it plain that these pupil members of a board, if any, would be co-opted. I think that the amendment meets the views of the Standing Committee and I hope that it will be accepted.

Mr. Norman Hogg: I am pleased that the Government have tabled these amendments. We shall not press amendment No. 17, as the objective which we set ourselves in that amendment has clearly been met.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 47, in page 4, line 15, leave out `but other' and insert—
'(2A) Subject to subsection (2) above,'—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 5

EDUCATION AUTHORITY OBSERVERS AND HEADTEACHER

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 4, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert—
`(1) The Director of Education or an officer of his education authority nominated by him for the purpose shall be entitled to attend and to speak at any meeting of a School Board in the authority's area, but shall not be a member of the Board.
(1A) The regional councillor for the electoral division in which a school is situated shall be entitled to attend and to speak at any meeting of any School Board for the time being established for that school, but he shall not be a member of the Board.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 65, in page 4, line 20, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

No. 1, in page 4, line 38, at end insert—
'(6) A School Board may invite the regional councillor for the School's catchment area to attend the Board and advise on issues that affect the local community.'.

Government amendments Nos. 50 and 53.

Mr. Forsyth: We had a lengthy discussion in Committee about the rights of education authorities and local regional


councillors. There was wide support for the principle that a local councillor should have the right of attendance. I undertook to look at the question.
Having given considerable thought to the matter, I commend to the House Government amendment No. 48. It will provide for a regional councillor in whose district the school is situated to have the right to attend meetings of the school board. That would be in addition to the right of the education authority to be represented by one of its officials. Our amendment makes it clear that for the parties concerned the right of attendance includes the right to speak at meetings. I think that that is what the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was trying to achieve, albeit that his amendment would have given to boards a right that is already available to them under the Bill—to invite anybody whom they choose to attend and speak at meetings.
The Opposition want the education authority to have the right to nominate either an elected member or an official. We included in the Bill a right of representation for education authorities because it is proper that they should have general oversight of a boards' activities. That would normally be a matter for officials who would report to an authority's elected members, as they do on all its other business. However, we recognise the value of enabling elected members of a local authority to scrutinise the work of the boards. Our amendment would allow that to be done by the local councillor for the area in which the school is located. He or she will be best placed to determine how closely the work of the board corresponds with the wishes of the local electorate. In my view, this removes any need to provide for a separate right for the authority to nominate an elected member to attend.

Mr. Dewar: This is very much a guest appearance. I was not a member of the Committee. I have not therefore been involved in the detailed arguments on this legislation. However, I am glad to have this opportunity to say a few words about the amendment. It gives me an opportunity to thank my colleagues who served on the Committee. They seem to have stuck to their arguments very effectively and with considerable ability. I single out nobody in particular. It seems to have been an extremely good all-round performance. Whether that is the reason I cannot say, but I understand that the Minister has been in a slightly more flexible mood than on other occasions.
I cannot welcome the amendment uncritically. There is evidence of movement, but from our point of view it is a question of giving with one hand and taking with the other. The amendment would allow the local regional councillor in whose electoral district the school is situated to attend and speak at board meetings, although not to vote at them. I understand that that was granted under pressure from both sides of the Committee. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and to the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) as well as to the SLD Members who pressed the same point. That is an improvement, and we welcome it. However, it is balanced by the restriction that is now imposed on education authority representation.
Under clause 5 of the Bill, the education authority has an untrammelled right of representation. Representation could be by an elected member or by an official. According to the amendment, the position of the local councillor has

been greatly improved but education authority representation must be by an official, not by an elected member. That is unfortunate. I am not entirely sure why the Minister has taken that line.
It is difficult to follow the arguments that lie behind the printed word. However, in Committee the Minister said:
I accept the point made by my right honourable Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside that there is a difference of approach between elected members and officials. However, that does not justify providing two places on each board for authority representatives…I again agree with my right honourable Friend, who said that it is not practical in rural areas for regional councillors to attend every board meeting."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 17 May 1988; c. 353.]
That was the general drift of the argument. It was not specific. However, the Minister recognised the importance of councillors taking part in the discussions. He made it abundantly clear that he did not want there to be a proliferation of observers with the right to speak. The only dispute is whether one of the representatives should always be an education authority official or whether it could be an elected member of an authority. I do not understand the Minister's objection because such a change would not increase the number of bodies, if that is the criterion or test that will apply.
It is not satisfactory to say that the presence of the local councillor buttons up the argument and satisfies all points of view. The local councillor will no doubt do an honourable job. That he has a specific job to do is recognised by the Minister in introducing the amendment. However, the local councillor may not be a member of the education committee and therefore might not be an effective channel of communication. He also may not be a member of the majority group and could find it difficult to represent the education authority's policy on the school board as it should be represented.
While we will, of course, take what we can get and welcome the change in favour of local councillors, it is a distinctly retrograde step to limit the education authority's right in a way that I regard as being pointless. I see no real argument why a councillor should not serve, if the education authority thinks it appropriate. There is a strong argument for saying that as the councillors are the policy-making element, they are particularly appropriate.
9 pm
We are dealing with something that bears on the relationship between the education authority and the individual school, and it has become an increasingly sensitive area as time has passed. I know that my hon. Friends are particularly interested in the recent controversy in the Paisley area. I will say a few words about it and ask the Minister to comment. I appreciate that in clause 15(2)(e) "the function of discontinuing" is not the direct responsibility of a school board but clearly it will be involved in any such argument. Presumably the passage of information will be of particular importance.
In Paisley, as the Minister will know, there has been controversy about the future of the grammar school. Recently, there has been a judgment in respect of Stanely Green high school from Lord Dervaird. I am sure that the Minister will agree that fashion changes and that attitudes to school closures change with it. I am delighted to welcome the Secretary of State for Scotland to our deliberations.
I have before me a speech made by Mr. John MacKay, who was the Under-Secretary's immediate predecessor. He


was speaking at the opening of a primary school at Romanno Bridge on 30 March 1987. At that time he was lamenting that,
As a result of parental opposition elsewhere the regional council has decided not to proceed with its policy of providing primary education in schools of at least three-teacher size wherever it is practicable to do so.
Apparently, it was a sad matter for comment that parental opposition to the closure of primary schools had forced the regional council to abandon that estimable Conservative principle. Mr. MacKay continued:
Parents arc bound to be concerned whenever the question of the amalgamation or closure of primary schools is raised, but if all parents were as enlightened as those in this area, the job of the regional council would have been much easier. It cannot he denied that the retention of a large number of very small primary schools is both educationally disadvantageous and wasteful of resources.
Those were the views of the Minister for education just months before the last general election. It is interesting to contrast them with some of the spirited rhetoric now emerging from Government sources about the paramount importance of parental opinion, in generally calling down abuse on those who are seen as being unsound on that basic premise.
On 4 April 1985, there was an excellent Adjournment debate raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) in which the then Minister for education, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), spoke strongly of the virtues of local democratic control. He stated:
I believe that it was right that the Education (Scotland) Act 1981 transferred the responsibility for closure to the education authority.
Later, he said:
I believe that the decision must be made by the local authority. It must take account of all the factors involved, and it is responsible to the electorate of the area.
Finally, there is a sentence which will give a taste of the Minister's views at that time. which are strikingly different from those which are held now. He said:
Therefore, school closures, which occur in urban as well as in rural areas, should be considered as part of a larger canvas and should not be seen as a discriminating or random measure."—[Official Report, 4 April 1985; Vol. 76, c. 1364–67.]
All I can say to the Minister is that the recent change in the law which introduced the 80 per cent. criterion, and for those schools that had a roll above 80 per cent. of capacity passed the ultimate decision to the Secretary of State, might well be seen as arbitrary or, to take the words of the hon. Member for Eastwood, as discriminating and random.
I recognise the problems that exist at the moment, but my anxiety is that much uncertainty will be created, not just for the pupils and parents, but for the staff and the education authority. I recognise and undertstand that there may be an appeal against Lord Dervaird's judgment, in particular, in the case of Stanely Green high school, and so I must be circumspect in what I say. I respect that. However, I think that I am entitled briefly to remind the House of what is in the judgment and of what it did not say, but not to comment on its merits, which would clearly be unpopular.
I make no complaint about press reports because they inevitably have to be telescoped. The court handed down a complex argument on this occasion. Perhaps I can just give the minor flavour of it. but on a key point. On page 12 it says:

That there is a difference between a duty to have regard to a general principle that children are educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents and a duty to secure that they are so educated is obvious.
I would not disagree with that distinction.
However, there is equally a difference in the present case, which I consider to be critical, between the duty to have regard to the wishes of parents for the education of their children and a duty to have regard to the general principle that pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. The latter, but not the former, appears to me to emphasise the importance of parental wishes, and it is the latter which is the duty incumbent on the respondents. Anyone who reads the judgment and concentrates on that fine distinction will recognise that this is not a matter of absence but a matter where a fine argument has been taken in the balance by the learned judge.
One thing is clear and that is that in the interpretation of section 28 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 we cannot draw general conclusions and sweeping certainties. After all, as I am sure my hon. Friends will appreciate, section 28 goes on to say, to put it simply in the words of the judgment,
That is not of course to say that the general principle"—
in that particular section—
(which is in itself qualified in relation to the compatibility of such education with the provision of suitable instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure) is to be treated as necessarily paramount. Other considerations may justify the education authority in departing from that general principle.
The judgment goes on to say:
But the critical issue is whether it is enough in the first instance for a party complaining of a breach of section 28(1) to establish the facts as mentioned at least when as in the present case it is also clear that the qualifications stated internally to section 28(1) itself do not arise. After considerable hesitation I have come to the view that by establishing those factors, the petitioners have done enough to give rise to the inference that there has been a failure to fulfil the statutory obligation by the respondents in the absence of adequate explanation from them.
I have detained the House at some length because this is an important point. What emerges clearly is that, whether the judgment stands in its present state or is altered in some further legal process, it does not establish, as has in some cases been suggested, the simple fact that a case is bound to succeed if it establishes parental opposition. There is a great deal more to it than that.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): indicated assent.

Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for nodding vigorously at that point.
The impression has been given, and has lodged in some minds, that the only test that has to be established is whether there was a majority parental opposition in the threatened school. If that was the situation, it would have some remarkable consequences. Therefore, it is worth putting on the record that that is not the simple message of the judgment, although I do not disguise that, properly, the learned judge took the view that parental opinion was an important factor. But there are other factors that must be weighed. We cannot simply take that and apply it to other hypothetical situations and think that we have a principle that will stand up.
I recognise that this is a very frustrating time for parents, pupils, teachers and those, both elected members


and officials, who have to wrestle with the intractable problems of a very difficult situation of overcapacity in our schools. There is no doubt that hard decisions had to be taken. That is still common ground, I hope, between the Minister and me.
I understand that frustration can sometimes lead to the argument that if the Secretary of State is to start interfering, if parliamentary orders are to be conjured up on the basis of expediency, it is better to abdicate and leave it all to the Secretary of State. It is tempting, but I believe that it would be wrong and that that temptation should be resisted.
There has been a dash of populism, a little touch of opportunism, about the actions of the Scottish Office in this matter—[Interruption.] I am being criticised by some of my colleagues, but I believe that it is sometimes better to understate rather than overstate. I believe that there has been a dash of opportunism and we must continue to argue for what is right and adopt the arguments properly put by the hon. Member for Eastwood in the Adjournment debate to which I referred.
I believe that the general principle of the 1981 legislation that these decisions should properly be taken by the local education authority in consultation with local opinion must point the way forward. We shall certainly continue to watch very carefully what is happening in the troubled and difficult situation that has been produced by recent litigation and by the irresponsible legislation—the order that was so suddenly and unexpectedly sprung upon the House. Our interest is in restoring stability, in getting the right results for the children in Paisley and any other area that is at risk, and in the provision of good education. I fear that these objectives have been rather lost sight of lately and that Ministers must take a good share of the responsibility for that.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I wish to address myself to the specifics of the amendment rather than to the more wide-ranging debate that has been initiated by hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench. I support the Government amendment and am pleased that the Minister has been able to come back with an amendment which I believe has taken on board the spirit of what we discussed in Committee. I readily accept that the second part of his amendment states even more clearly than my own amendment in Committee the role of the regional councillor.
There is a difference of view between me and Labour Members because I believe that the whole basis of school boards and school councils is that it is local decision making and local involvement that matter, and that members of the local council should be involved by having the right to attend. It is exactly because—this is a point that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) used against the amendment—the local member may be of a different political persuasion from the administration that he or she should have the right to attend, because he or she has been elected by that community to represent its interests.
I would not have objected if the Minister's amendment had allowed for the education authority to send a councillor. I can quite see his objective, which is to ensure that the official authority view is properly but not overwhelmingly heard in the context of local decision

making. I therefore feel that the Minister has got the balance right, and I want to pay him a tribute because I forced a Division in Committee and was criticised for so doing on the ground that the Minister would not then have an obligation to come back to the House. The Minister has come back to the House and, as far as I am concerned, has answered the debate satisfactorily. I support his amendment and am grateful to him.

Mr. Buchan: I am grateful to the Government for once for putting down this amendment so that we might discuss it. I am not very happy about it; it does not really extend the prime authority of the regional authority to any great extent in relation to the board. Having said that, I must also say that we all seem to have been in business to diminish the involvement of the regional councillor as much as we can, notably in the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) mentioned—the judicial judgment made in the last week or so. It would be useful if I said something about the effect that that has had upon Paisley.
In the week that the judgment was made the Secretary of State also decided to intervene directly in the entire organisation of secondary education in Paisley. The regional authority, operating under the constraints of economic measures imposed upon it by the Government reduction in rate support grant, by the threat of clawback and all the other factors which the Government have used to inhibit local authority expenditure, decided, among other things, to close schools to save money. Although the duty had been laid upon it by the Government, when it acted to save money, the Government intervened to prevent it from doing so. A year earlier Mr. MacKay was stressing the importance of closing schools to save money. The Lothian authority is being pressed to close schools and is accused of spending money uneconomically because it is keeping all its schools open. At the same time the Government are acting to prevent judicious economic measures being taken in Paisley.
9.15 pm
The authority had decided that three schools out of six should be kept open. I disagreed with that decision, being in favour of maintaining four schools. The Government have now taken action which has left Paisley with five schools. The Government have intervened to save one school without rhyme or reason, for no educational purpose other than that it was justified in the eyes of the Prime Minister because it was called Paisley grammar school.
We have the greatest pity for the Secretary of State because we know how much he resisted the decision. He was placed in a difficult position in his office because of the conspiracy between the Prime Minister and his Under-Secretary. We have great sympathy for the Secretary of State, but we would have had more regard for him had he rejected the pressure which was put on him. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State has borne himself well, considering the humiliation he has suffered. The only man who has suffered more humiliation over the last 12 months is probably Sir Robert Armstrong. At least, the Secretary of State stayed calm but he tried to curry favour with the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary by his decision to save yet another school at the same time as the judicial process was going on.
He has asserted that Paisley grammar school was saved because of parental wishes, despite the comments he has made about extending the power of regional councillors. Parental wishes in every school in Paisley would be to save their school. Stanely Green has fought a successful legal action and has been saved by a judgment in Edinburgh. The parents there, too, wished to save the school. What did the Secretary of State say about court action? He said:
we and the local authorities…will have to look very closely at the implications of that.
According to a press report, if the judgment was allowed to stand, Scottish education authorities might find it impossible to close schools when it was necessary. When a school is kept open by judicial action, the Secretary of State says that he must consider it carefully. Indeed, the Government are talking about bringing in legislation to ensure that that judgment is not followed in other areas. They may change the law, as they did a few months ago in regard to Paisley grammar school. In that case they were technically acting illegally under the Education (Scotland) Act 1946, as was shown by the Statutory Instruments Committee.
The Government now say that they will intervene to prevent a judicial judgment being made to keep a school open. On the one hand, there is a direct order from the Prime Minister for a school to remain open, and the Government immediately change the law to keep it open, yet, on the other hand, the Secretary of State is prepared to change the law in respect of a school with an equally good educational record and the support of parents and pupils. It was bad enough when the Secretary of State changed the law for one school, but his action is now made even more disgraceful because, in a similar situation, he is prepared to change the law the other way round. It is monstrous.
The fact that we are apparently merely dealing with two schools in one town in the north is no reason for not recognising that this is one of the most arbitrary interventions of any Government in the past 40 or 50 years. It is massive in its import for the parents involved and for the town. The chutzpah with which I have honoured the Secretary of State in the past has now been used to insult the people of Britain through those two arbitrary actions.
We must now consider what options are open to us. Ninety per cent. of the parents in Paisley, including the two Members of Parliament, wanted four schools left open. We now have the ludicrous situation of five schools being kept open, but not those schools chosen by the parents of Paisley or by the local authorities.
What will the Government do about that? The Secretary of State may say, "We see the error of the judgment, so let's change that judgment." He does not say, "We see the consequence and effect of our arbitrary intervention to save Paisley grammar school." There are various options, but only one solution. One option is that the Government should face up to their arbitrary behaviour and take the power to themselves. That is the suggestion of the chairman of the education authority. He says that the authority can no longer act. He said that it acted in accordance with educational and financial requirements, but the judge on the one hand and the Secretary of State on the other destroyed that action. He says that the authority does not now know how to proceed, unless the Government take over the responsibility. They had shed that responsibility so that local

authorities would carry the obligation instead. As soon as it suited the Prime Minister to save one school, the Government acted the other way round.
There is another solution—to pay attention to the needs of the children, parents and local authority in Paisley so that they can plan education in Paisley. The judge was moving towards that position. He talked about the wider area and about the four schools, and he was right. He is more intelligent and perceptive than the Secretary of State about that. We must remember the hardship experienced by parents in the other schools, not just Paisley grammar and Stanely Green, but in Merksworth, for example, which faces closure as a result of the action to save the other schools.
No one knows which schools the kids will attend after the summer. There is unease everywhere. Last Friday the Stanely Green parents rejoiced about the saving of their school but today they see that the Secretary of State is suggesting possible legislation to reverse that principle and an appeal by the regional authority is pending. The authority has a right to appeal, although I am on the side of the parents and hope that the appeal does not succeed.
The solution is to look at the totality of non-denominational education. We know what has been happening. The new yuppie areas around Paisley have fixed upon one school. The parents have exercised parental choice so that that school is more than 50 per cent. occupied by children from outside. As a result, Merksworth high school, the newest and finest building, has been drained and is now threatened.
We must start by taking an educational look at the matter. A schools council should be formed to pull together the six non-denominational schools in Paisley. Each school would be represented by its headmaster, one member of staff and one parent. This council would have a remit to help to develop comprehensive secondary education in Paisley. It would have a remit to make sure that no exercise of parental choice by people who are well outside the area will prevent children from getting to their local school. It would have the duty of ensuring that no school is drained of pupils. It must apply throughout Paisley a curriculum policy by which proper parental choice can be exercised without draining any school or without enhancing one school at the expense of the children in Paisley.
The Secretary of State should take the initiative as a matter of urgency. He should meet the education authority in Strathclyde to discuss the situation. Neither side has come out of this with much credit. Perhaps I have not either because I have been arguing the case apparently with insufficient conviction. There were sectional arguments in Paisley and in Strathclyde and, above all, there was the stupidity of the Secretary of State in obeying the arbitrary order of the Prime Minister.
I hope that the Minister will respond and try to save the situation. I hope that he will look at it afresh to see what can be done to establish a proper structure for four schools in Paisley that will save the best buildings. That would mean merging Paisley grammar school and Merksworth. If he insists he may use Paisley grammar school, but he should insist that children should not be kept out of the new grammar school, Merksworth, by people from the surrounding areas where there are other secondary schools. As soon as the school is functioning the pupils could move into the new building. That would mean a terrible waste for a couple of years of a new building.
The Minister should not overcut expenditure on schools. There is plenty of community support for the use of Stanely Green, Camphill and Castlehead. Above all, the Minister should discuss the matter. As I have said, parents do not know which schools children will attend. There will be appeal and counter appeal and the Secretary of State will have to decide whether he should intervene to change the law. All this is happening while the education of thousands of children is being held up. In the name of Heaven, the Minister should talk. He should meet the regional authority and come up with a solution that is in the interests of children and parents instead of the kind of nonsense that we have had from the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary of State.
I know that the Under-Secretary of State has been having discussions with selected groups of parents in my area in order to encourage opting out. By way of the tension and disruption that he has created he hopes to set the pattern for an opting-out impetus in Scotland. I hope that the Minister does not deny doing that because I know that he has, and I can give him chapter and verse. The situation is serious, and I beg the Minister to respond to it.

Mr. Bruce Milian: I want to speak briefly about school closures without going back over the changes that were made in the Education (Scotland) Act 1981 which I opposed and thought were unfortunate and unnecessary. The merits of the judgment on the schools in Paisley have already been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), but I want to deal with the implications of that judgment, if it is upheld.
9.30 pm
The judgment refers to section 28 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which is a long-standing provision. I am not sure when it was originally written into the legislation, but it appeared in the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 and was introduced considerably before then.
Section 28 is a balanced provision. It takes account—rightly—of parental wishes; it also takes account of practical considerations, including the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure. In the case of secondary education courses there is an additional provision that gives the education authority power to prevent a child being entered, at the wishes of its parents, for a course from which it has no reasonable prospect of benefiting. Last week's judgment will be appealed against, but if the balance of this provision were tipped overwhelmingly in favour of parental choice, that would have disastrous consequences for educational planning of school closures, the adjustment of school boundaries in Scotland and so on. We can be fairly sure in all the arguments about school closures that it is rare for one to go ahead with the express approval of the parents concerned. There is nearly always opposition—that is perfectly understandable and, in some cases, legitimate.
There has always been a balance of interests. When the Secretary of State had to give his approval to a school closure the balance of interests was taken into account by reference to him. No school closure went ahead unless it was shown that the education authority had properly taken account of parental views, that there had been proper consultation, and so on. So a balance in assessing school closures is provided by section 28. If that balance is

upset, education authorities will find it impossible to deal with pressing problems of overcapacity in schools. That cannot be right.
Whatever the merits of the Stanely Green decision, it would be a great mistake for parents or hon. Members to believe that it would lead to parental opposition to a school closure preventing a school from closing. That could not work and it would not be good for education ultimately, because it would not be good for the parents or children. I hope the Minister will reply at least briefly to this point.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South said, there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty about the legal position and the practical consequences of the decision that has been made.

Mrs. Fyfe: I want to call the House's attention to a letter that some of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Glasgow and I have received from the Girl Guides Association. I speak as the only member of my group who was eligible to have been a Girl Guide, but I confess that the Brownies expelled me—Brown Owl said that I would come to a bad end, and how right she was. [Laughter.] Seriously, the Girl Guides Association has asked if we could support the bulk of the work done by voluntary organisations by ensuring that power over the letting of schools is retained by the local authorities. I should be glad if the Minister could give that assurance, not only to the Girl Guides but to the Boy Scouts and other organisations with a similar problem. It would be a good thing if they could be assured on that point tonight.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) for his kind remarks in welcoming this group of amendments. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) have used the opportunity of the amendments to discuss school closures in Strathclyde. I very much agree with their strictures about the interpretation of the judgment. It certainly does not mean that schools cannot be closed where there is parental opposition.
As the right hon. Member for Govan pointed out, section 28 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 requires authorities to pay
regard to the general principle that, so far as is compatible with the provision of suitable instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents.
The judgment hinges on the fact that, although Strathclyde claimed to have taken section 28 into account, it did not produce any specific material to support that claim. The judge took the view that once it was established that most parents opposed closure, unless there were considerations of suitable instruction and training or avoiding unreasonable public expenditure, the onus should be shifted to the authority to show that other considerations overruled. The judgment is particularly critical of the director of education's report to the education committee, which made no reference to section 28 or to its contents and, in reporting on representations received, made no distinction between the views of parents and those of teachers, politicians and the general public.
Thus, the judgment does not mean that an authority can never close a school. The main message seems to be that directors of education will have to be more


circumspect about how they draw up reports for their education committees. In particular, they will have to draw specific attention to section 28.
I do not wish to comment on the merits of the judgment because I know that Strathclyde has suggested that it will appeal. However, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Garscadden for using the opportunity that presented itself tonight to raise this matter because, clearly, it is a matter of concern. The hon. Gentleman was right to point to some of the reports which have appeared in the press and elsewhere, which may have given a different interpretation.
I should like to deal now with a point raised by the hon. Member for Garscadden in relation to the amendments. He was critical of the change, which I acknowledge that we have made, in requiring the local authority nominee to be an official rather than a councillor. That is to balance our response to representations made in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and the hon. Member for Gordon that the local councillor was the appropriate person to have on a local body concerned with local schools. I very much agree with that and we have taken it on board——

Mr. John Home Robertson: First, will the Minister also take on board the fact that there may be many instances where the local councillor in the location of the school may not be the representative of the majority of parents because of the vagaries of catchment areas and boundaries? Secondly, why does the amendment make no reference to Islands councillors? Is the amendment intended to apply to the Islands councillors, as well as to the regional councillors?

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman had read the Hansard of our Committee proceedings, he would know that those were precisely the arguments that I advanced without success in Committee when I found myself outnumbered on all sides by those who took the view that, while the argument is technically correct, it would be inappropriate for me to succumb to it.
I should like to deal now with a point of some substance raised by the hon. Member for Garscadden. We took the view that if we were to have a majority party nominee as a councillor and an official—and strong representations were made in Committee that officials should be able to attend in their own right—and a local councillor who may or may not be of the same party, small boards in particular would feel overwhelmed by education authority representation. It is important that those boards should be able to meet and deliberate without feeling pressure from the central authority. I acknowledge that that is not an ideal solution, but it is the best shot that I could make to meet the wishes of all Committee Members. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gordon for acknowledging that we seem to have been successful in pleasing him and my right hon. and hon. Friends in that respect.

Mr. Buchan: In view of the terrible situation imposed on Paisley, will the Minister or the Secretary of State for Scotland agree to consult very quickly with Strathclyde region to find a common solution? The problem has been caused partly by Strathclyde region, partly by the Government, and partly by the legal action. However, if those two responsible bodies, the Scottish Office and Strathclyde region, meet perhaps they can produce a solution before the summer.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has been at great pains to argue that we should not interfere in these matters.

Mr. Buchan: The Minister already has interfered.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that we have. With regard to Paisley grammar and the regulations that we have brought before the House, which I know that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues oppose, a number of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues are now making representations to the Government to use those regulations in connection with some schools. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that.
I listened to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). If he looks at the Paisley Daily Express of Thursday 3 December 1987—[Interruption]. That is a most important publication for the hon. Member for Paisley, South. That paper contains an article entitled
New twist in schools controversy.
The article states:
Paisley's schools closure controversy has taken a new twist following the leaking of a document setting out Strathclyde Region's education committee's plans for non-denominational schools.
For the document indicates that both the regional review group and the education committee have agreed to shut three Paisley schools…although neither bodies have yet met.
The document—embarrassing for the regional council and giving new ammunition to parents opposing the closures—is dated November. The regional review group isn't scheduled to meet until later this month and the education committee won't consider the closure proposals until February.

Mr. Buchan: What has that got to do with me?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman was arguing that proper consultation had not taken place. A document had been prepared setting out the plans for Paisley in November in advance of discussions and decisons which would not be made until February. There are lessons to be learned. I do not see any merit in proceeding along the lines that he suggests. I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in page 4, line 33, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 38 and insert
`ensure that head teachers and staff are awarded extended time off from contractual duties if the Board meets within normal school hours, or from planned activity time, and make arrangements for appropriate cover.'.
I draw the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to the implications of clause 5 in which the Government suggest that there should be straightforward recommendations for education authorities to ensure that head teachers and staff of each school in the area are available when necessary for board meetings. It also refers to the role of those people on the school board.
If Conservative Members who have just entered the Chamber would care to listen to me they will learn that the purpose of the amendment is to make it possible for head teachers and staff representatives on school boards to prepare adequately for meetings. Those members of staff will be in the minority and it is vital that they have the time and opportunity to prepare for the meetings. We assume that agendas will be circulated in advance. If the head teacher and staff members are to make an impact on the board's discussions, it is right that they have time to prepare and consider the implications of suggestions on


the agenda. [Interruption.] I am finding it difficult to talk above the noise of hon. Members who have just come into the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Wherever the noise is coming from, I think that the House should give the hon. Lady a fair hearing.

Mrs. Ewing: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I draw the Minister's attention to what he said in Committee:
We intend the head teacher to occupy a key role as the board's principal professional adviser. He will have a duty to explain clearly the authority's policies, and to help the board to evaluate its plans in the context of those policies."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 17 May 1988; c. 369.]
Therefore, preparation time will be important.
I also wish to ensure that head teachers and staff members are not under any strain while attending the school board through worrying about the education of the pupils left in the school or the administration of the school during their absence. It is important that we avoid creating a conflict of interests in their minds, so that they can concentrate on the issues before the school board. Surely we regard as part of the past the doubling up of classes, the dismissing of pupils early from school and the cancelling of planned activity time.
One area of importance is the staffing review, to which the Minister referred during the debate on new clause 1. I shall be interested to hear his comments because, in many ways, that will influence my decision on whether to press the amendment to a Division. First, how long has the staffing review been in the Minister's hands? Secondly, when exactly will the announcement be made and can we be reassured that it will be before the Bill is debated in the other place? When discussing the responsibilities of teachers, it is important to know the background, and the staffing review will be a vital factor in that. Thirdly, how will the announcement be made about the conclusions of the staffing review? I hope that there will be an opportunity to debate it in the House and to consult the teachers in our constituencies.
Many representations have already been made to me by head teachers in my area, who are concerned about the implications of the review. They hope that it will improve the situation, and that is why we need to consider it in the context of relieving them and teachers of their duties in school so that they can participate in the school boards.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing this matter before the House. She raised a number of points of substance, but I do not believe that the amendment is either necessary or desirable. I certainly would be less than enthusiastic about board meetings during the school day. Of course, that would be for board members to decide, but I think that most of them would find it difficult to meet during the day. I recognise that the hon. Lady is concerned that staff should be properly trained for the new board and that proper account should be taken of their contractual duties and obligations.
In the hope that I can persuade the hon. Lady not to press the amendment to a Division, I assure her that when considering the staffing review we shall take account of the

impact of school boards. Of course, that matter has come late for consideration. I am sure she recognises that perhaps the delay experienced reflects, in part, our need to take account of that.
We shall be providing proper training for head teachers and we recognise that additional responsibilities will fall upon them. We are working very closely with the National Association of Head Teachers and the Headteachers Association of Scotland to that effect.
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) asked me a number of questions, which I am not in a position to answer, as to the precise form and date of the announcement. However, we shall fulfil the undertaking that I have already given, which is that the staffing review will be published before the end of the school year. I hope that that will satisfy her. I hear her point about the need to do that so that she has an opportunity to make known to the House her views and thoughts on the matter. I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw amendment No. 67, and note once again that we are most concerned with the substance behind her thinking.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: While the Minister has not been able to answer precisely the various questions that I put to him, I accept the exigencies under which he is working and, in the light of the sentiment he expressed, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15

DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS TO BOARDS

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 9, line 16, at end insert 'appointing or of.
The amendment involves the ceiling powers contained in the Bill. The ceiling powers were originally proposed in the consultation document produced by the Minister. As a result of that consultation and the opposition to them, we were told by the Minister that they were to be removed. They have not been removed; they appear in clause 15 under the different name, "delegated functions". Although the name is different, they are still ceiling powers.
The amendment seeks to add to the exemptions from those delegated functions the power to appoint other staff within the school. We would be grateful if the Minister would consider the matter and if he would let us know what special knowledge and benefit the school board will bring to the appointment of other staff within the school.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: If the Opposition seek an assurance that the Bill would not allow the appointment of staff entering into a contract of employment, I can help them. The exclusion from delegation to giving employment includes the staff, but was drafted in that way to ensure that the selection of junior staff could be delegated.
It will be quite in order for an authority to delegate to a board that might meet as a committee with the head teacher as chairman the selection of junior staff for the school. Of course, the candidates would have to be eligible for appointment and the authority would make the formal appointment on the recommendation of the board. Clause 15(2)(b) rules out such delegations in the case of senior staff because the appointment to those posts is covered by schedule 2, which allows the authority to have a say in the selection of those important school managers.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. He is mistaken in his assertion that it is a Trojan horse to bring back the ceiling powers. I seem to recall, although my memory may be deficient, that even the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) agreed with me in that respect.

Mr. McAllion: Withdraw.

Mr. Forsyth: In the interest of the good business of the House, I am happy to withdraw if I am wrong. I can assure the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) that ceiling powers are not coming in through the back door, the window or by any other route—there were various metaphors used in Committee. Therefore, I urge him to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Galbraith: Despite the Minister's explanation, we are not reassured. We do not intend to divide the House, although we shall seek to pursue the matter in another place.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 9, line 29, at end insert—
'(h) the control of the current budget of the school'.
Despite the Minister's reassurances, this is yet another attempt to introduce ceiling powers by the back door. The amendment is about the control of the current budget by the school board. The Minister may like to explain why that is not contained within the exclusions, as we should like. In the past, he has said that if the school board does not wish this power to be delegated, there will be no problem. We wish to ensure that this is not within the school board's power. The job requires considerable expertise. I remind the Minister that these functions will be carried out by parents in their spare time and that it will be difficult for them to carry out this task. The idea is not cost-effective and, most important, as the Minister will note from consultations, parents do not want it.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Direct control over a budget for the recurrent costs of a school was not one of the original ceiling powers. It would be possible for boards to take on similar powers by delegation, but the original ceiling proposal was for boards to be given control over a total current budget, which would be defined in regulations. As the Bill now stands, boards and authorities could agree on the delegation of control over parts of a school's current expenditure. There is no provision for the Secretary of State to determine what the budget should include. We have moved some way, but the door is not yet sufficiently ajar to get the ceiling in.

Mr. Galbraith: The Minister has moved some way, but not enough for the Opposition. Again, we do not wish to divide the House, although we shall pursue the matter in another place.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 18

FINANCIAL POWERS OF BOARDS

Mr. Norman Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 11, line 30, after 'borrowing,' insert 'or levying charges'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 49.

Mr. Hogg: As the amendments are linked, I assume that the Government accept amendment No. 40, which is intended to ensure that boards do not start imposing charges for any educational function or charging levies and thus behaving like a private school. If the Government accept our amendment, I should be delighted to hear from the Minister.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am not able to accept amendment No. 40, but I think that I can help the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg).
Amendment No. 49 is designed to meet the anxieties expressed in Committee about charges. It does not make specific provision for the compulsory transfer of property from a school board, which is being disestablished on the amalgamation of a school, to an interim board. In such circumstances, a board may wish to use its resources in a specific way—for example, to preserve the school's name for posterity by endowing a prize for the combined school, and we do not wish that to be prevented. The board will know that the interim board exists and that property not transferred to the interim board and not otherwise provided for will go to the education authority or the board's disestablishment. It will thus be able to exercise choice. We shall issue guidance to boards on the disposal of properties so that they are aware of the options. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment No. 40 and to support the Government amendment.

Sir Hector Monro: As one who raised this matter on Second Reading and in Standing Committee, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his clarification.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Having heard the Minister's comments and as I now more clearly understand the Government's intention, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 49, in page 11, line 33 at end insert—
'(2) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall entitle a School Board to make any charges or demand any fees in respect of the school education provided by their education authority. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth]

Clause 19

ALLOWANCES FOR MEMBERS OF BOARDS

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move amendment. No. 5, in page 11, line 40 after 'section', insert '45 and'.
The purpose of the amendment is to establish whether the Minister is prepared to agree to a loss of earnings allowance for members of school boards. I hope that he will recognise our concern that attendance at school boards will be a fairly demanding job which could cause people to lose earnings, especially if they are shift workers. An allowance for loss of earnings is already available to people who participate in children's panels—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the School Boards (Scotland) Bill and the Motion relating to Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

School Boards (Scotland) Bill

As amended, again considered.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I do not wish to detain the House. It is an important matter, and the arguments are self-evident. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether he is prepared to accept the amendment or consider ensuring that board members will not be deterred from participating if their earnings are at risk.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I have been generous to the hon. Gentleman, but I have to disappoint him on this occasion. He must recognise the difference between local authority bodies and school boards. It would not be appropriate to extend the opportunity to make claims for support to school board members, which would effectively put them on a par with elected councillors. I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Bruce: The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am not entirely satisfied. I am worried that in certain circumstances people will be deterred from serving, especially if the school board's powers are to develop in the future, which could involve longer sittings and subcommittees and so on. Like the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), I do not wish to divide the House. I shall pursue the matter in another place.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 22

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 50, in page 13, line 20, at end insert—
'"electoral division" means an electoral division of a region, in terms of section 5(1)(a) of the 1973 Act;'—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 13, line 22, at end insert—
parent" in relation to a pupil means his natural parent or any other natural person who is his guardian, who has custody of him or who is liable to maintain him;'

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 52.

Mr. Forsyth: I undertook in Committee to consider again the definition of "parent" in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and to see whether it could be improved for the purposes of this Bill. We wanted especially to exclude the possibility of institutions that have custody of a child or the parents of adults taking educational classes at a school being troubled by a spurious vote in a board election. The amendments achieve that purpose and I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 52, in page 13, line 26, at end insert—

'pupil" does not include any person over the age of 18 years;'.

No. 53, in page 13, line 26, at end insert—
regional councillor" means a councillor elected for an electoral division of a region, in terms of section 5(1) of the 1973 Act;'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 1

ELECTORAL PROCEDURE

Mr. Norman Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 15, line 7, leave out from 'elections' to end of line 8.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 56, amendment No. 24, in page 15, line 11, leave out paragraph 3, and Government amendments Nos. 26 and 25.

Mr. Hogg: The intention of the amendments is clear from the Amendment Paper.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: By happy coincidence, the wording of the Opposition and Government amendments was the same and I am happy to accept the Opposition's arguments on this matter. The Government amendments arise out of commitments that I gave in Committee and I hope that they command the support of the House.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 54, in page 15, line 7, leave out
from 'elections' to end of line 8 and insert
'in accordance with—

(a) this Schedule; and
(b) such guidance as to the form and content of such schemes as the Secretary of State may from time to time issue.'.

No. 55, in page 15, line 10, at end insert—
'2A. Every scheme shall include provision for the appointment by the education authority of a returning officer to ensure the proper conduct of the elections.'.

No. 56, in page 15, leave out lines 11 to 15.

No. 26, in page 15, line 18, leave out from 'post' to end of line 19.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 2

APPOINTMENT OF HEADTEACHERS, DEPUTIES AND ASSISTANTS

Mr. Norman Hogg: Important matters are raised in amendment No. 30, but in view of the position that we have reached in tonight's business I do not intend to move the amendment. I hope to have it debated in the other place.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 17, line 6, leave out '3' and insert '4'.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 59, 60 and 61.

Mr. Forsyth: The effect of the amendments is to adjust the numbers in consequence of an amendment that the Committee accepted in principle. Therefore, I expect that they will command the support of the whole House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 59, in page 17, line 9, leave out '3' and insert '4'.

No. 60, in page 17, line 27, leave out '2' and insert '3'.

No. 61, in page 17, line 30, leave out '3' and insert '4'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I do not think that the Bill should be given a formal Third Reading. It is a devious, sneaky piece of legislation. It purports to be a Bill to decentralise educational power. It takes power away from education authorities and gives more power to teachers and parents. The Government have not thought through the consequences of the Bill. If they have thought them through, their intentions in introducing the Bill are evil and will have a detrimental effect on children's educational opportunities.
I believe firmly in the decentralisation of power, including educational power, but the way in which the Bill pretends to do it is very unsatisfactory. It fails to strike a balance between the powers that may be decentralised to one particular school and the powers that should be vested in the wider area of which that school forms a part.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) has dwelt at considerable length and in some detail on the effect of Government intervention, right up to Downing street level, on the educational opportunities for children in his area. What takes place in Paisley today may take place in many other areas of Scotland next week, next month or next year.
Ever since comprehensive education became a reality in Scotland we have recognised that it is not good enough to look at just one school and its needs in isolation from the rest of the community. That would lead to a growing disparity in children's educational opportunities between one school and another in the same community.
For this Minister to expect the House to give a formal Third Reading to the Bill is a piece of cheek and brass neck. For a Minister with responsibility for education in Scotland who has no mandate whatsoever from the people of Scotland to start preaching to us about the need for decentralisation and accountability is an affront to all the traditions of democratic education in Scotland. He only scraped home by the skin of his teeth in his own constituency and then found himself catapulted into the Scottish Office as Minister for Health, Minister for Education, Minister for Sport, Minister for Art and Minister for this, that and the next thing. In a very devious way, he even went cap in hand to Downing street, behind the back of his own Secretary of State, to persuade the Prime Minister to intervene in Scottish education, about which she knows next to nothing.
There are dangerous tendencies in the Bill. It is a paving Bill for what is politely called down here "opting out", and which could eventually lead not just to schools opting out of local education authority control but to the privatisation of certain schools and a return to selection, fee paying and to everything that is anathema to traditions of democratic education within Scotland.
The late Willie Ross would turn in his grave if he could see his successor as Minister with responsibility for Scottish education. Willie Ross came in for a great deal of criticism during his tenure of office as Secretary of State for Scotland, including some from myself. However, no one can take back from him what he did in the late 1960s—

almost a quarter of a century ago—when he brought forward an education revolution, trying to ex tend educational opportunity for generations of children. There are many hon. Members in all quarters of the House now representing Scottish constituencies, and a few Conservative Members representing perhaps even constituencies south of the border, who gained a great deal from the Scottish education revolution of the late 1960s.
In this devious legislation, we are witnessing a first attempt by the Government to bring about a counterrevolution that will be detrimental to children's educational opportunities in Scotland rather than be an extension of them. That is why we should vote against the Bill.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Some excellent schools in my constituency have been closed and it is a pity that parents have been compelled to resort to the courts. I hope that the Minister will examine means of allowing parents to make representations to the relevant Ministers when closures are to take place. As the Minister well knows, it is a difficult and expensive process for parents to go to court, and I hope that he will bear that point in mind.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Once again the Government have accepted few amendments, and none of major importance. The Bill is fundamentally flawed in that it ignores Scottish traditions and attitudes and clearly intends to introduce alien ideas and practices. The Government would have been better employed building upon the foundations of existing parent-teacher organisations, using existing practices and expertise, and giving greater powers to individuals and organisations within the existing and established Scottish system. Instead, we are presented with an ideologically based Bill, producing an educational Trojan horse which will eventually destroy the harmony and unity of our national education system. Time will tell, but we shall oppose the Bill on Third Reading. We would have preferred legislation designed to defend and advance our nation's education in ways more suited to the Scottish system and Scottish attitudes.

Mr. Buchan: The Minister's conduct tonight has amply illustrated the Bill's real purpose. Events over the past eight days have underlined its purpose. It is not to extend democracy towards parents in Scottish schools, but to pave the way for the next Bill which will allow opting out.
It is noticeable that the Minister did not reply to my challenge that he had been having meetings with parents in the town of Paisley, which he has so disrupted, in order to develop the concept of them opting out so that Ministers would have a model for the rest of Scotland. We have seen Ministers taking action directly to save one school at the command of the Prime Minister—Paisley grammar—and we have seen them succeeding. A legal action prevented the closure of another school which people wanted to be kept open. We want an answer to some of those questions.
Above all, the Minister can use the two or three minutes remaining to him tonight to tell us whether he will now meet Strathclyde region to try to settle the education crisis in Paisley before we hit the summer holidays. None of the children in the schools in Paisley know where they are


going in a month's time, and nor do their parents. Will the Minister answer that? Will he meet the region and try to understand the mess into which he and the Prime Minister have put my town?

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: As is so often the case with the Government, the Bill represents a basically popular idea that has been corrupted because the Government have failed to take into account the views of the overwhelming majority of people who made representations to them.
No hon. Member would deny the case for giving parents more involvement in the running of a school. The Government are trying to pretend that that is what the Bill is about, despite the fact that they are insisting on a parental majority rather than a partnership. They have rejected the concept of a partnership that parents and teachers have actively sought. That is the fundamental flaw in the Bill. No Conservative Member, even those who have sought to modify the Bill, can escape the fact that it does not represent what Scotttish education is looking for. Indeed, it is a diversion from other more important and higher priorities.
The Conservative party, in its election manifesto, pledged to reform and give extra powers to school councils. There would have been widespread cross-party support if it had done that, but the Bill goes much further and does not seek to create the spirit of partnership which has a long-established tradition within Scottish education.
The final point that is particularly offensive to Opposition Members is that we cannot accept that a Government with only 10 Scottish Members have the right to take the devolved power that we have in the Scottish Office, corrupt it and disrupt our entire education system with ideologies that the Scottish people have convincingly and comprehensively rejected. That is why, although the Bill contains some proposals that could usefully have been implemented to reform schools councils, it represents something that Scottish education did not want, did not ask for and will reject. We shall vote against it.

Mr. Norman Hogg: The Bill had its genesis on an August morning last year when the Minister made a far-reaching announcement on what he proposed to do with regard to the management of our schools in Scotland. His proposals were rejected because the Scottish people have a deep affection for their system of education and they were not prepared to have it radically altered by a Government that had little authority to govern in Scotland.
The Bill which we are discussing tonight is much changed from that which we debated in Committee. I am pleased that that is the case, but I regret to say that there remains much in the Bill that we find unacceptable. We find it unacceptable that parents are to have a controlling rather than an advisory role on the school board and that there is to be no partnership with the teachers in the sense of their having equal powers.
The Bill gives too much power to the school board over the school budget, over the head teachers' spending plans, and, therefore, over matters of curriculum. It downgrades

the prefessional expertise of teachers and is a diversion from the real problems of education over which the Minister presides.
The Bill is a paving measure for opting out, and if the Minister thought that he had a bad time last August when he announced his proposals for school boards, it is nothing like the response that he will get when he brings forward a Bill for opting out later this year.
My right hon. and hon. Friends will, therefore, without doubt and without hesitation, vote against this Bill tonight.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The Bill brings to parents in Scotland the same opportunities and rights as parents enjoy elsewhere in the United Kingdom and in almost every other country in Europe. It is a sad reflection on the Opposition that they have opposed it not in principle but by the back door and on every occasion. Once again it is the Conservative party that is extending people's rights in Scotland, and this will be recognised on the doorsteps in the years ahead.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 213.

Divislon No. 372]
[10.19 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aitken, Jonathan
Carrington, Matthew


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cartwright, John


Amess, David
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Amos, Alan
Chapman, Sydney


Arbuthnot, James
Chope, Christopher


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Ashby, David
Colvin, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Conway, Derek


Atkins, Robert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Atkinson, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (MoleValley)
Couchman, James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cran, James


Baldry, Tony
Critchley, Julian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Batiste, Spencer
Curry, David


Bellingham, Henry
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bendall, Vivian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Day, Stephen


Benyon, W.
Devlin, Tim


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dickens, Geoffrey


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dicks, Terry


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dover, Den


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dunn, Bob


Boswell, Tim
Durant, Tony


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dykes, Hugh


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Eggar, Tim


Bowis, John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Evennett, David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fallon, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Farr, Sir John


Bright, Graham
Favell, Tony


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Finsberg, Sir Geotfrey


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Forman, Nigel


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Buck, Sir Antony
Forth, Eric


Burns, Simon
Fox, Sir Marcus


Butcher, John
Franks, Cecil


Butler, Chris
Freeman, Roger


Butterfill, John
French, Douglas






Fry, Peter
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gale, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gardiner, George
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gill, Christopher
Major, Rt Hon John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Malins, Humfrey


Goodlad, Alastair
Mans, Keith


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maples, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marland, Paul


Gow, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gregory, Conal
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grist, Ian
Miller, Sir Hal


Ground, Patrick
Mills, lain


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Roger


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, John
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Harris, David
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Haselhurst, Alan
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hawkins, Christopher
Mudd, David


Hayes, Jerry
Needham, Richard


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Nelson, Anthony


Hayward, Robert
Neubert, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heddle, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hill, James
Page, Richard


Hind, Kenneth
Paice, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patnick, Irvine


Holt, Richard
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Pawsey, James


Howard, Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Portillo, Michael


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Price, Sir David


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunter, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Redwood, John


Irvine, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jackson, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Janman, Tim
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jessel, Toby
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardilf N)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rost, Peter


Key, Robert
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Kilfedder, James
Ryder, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knapman, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lang, Ian
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Latham, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sims, Roger


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Peter
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Sir lan (Havant)
Speller, Tony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stevens, Lewis


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)





Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Waller, Gary


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Watts, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wheeler, John


Tredinnick, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Trippier, David
Wood, Timothy


Twinn, Dr Ian



Waddington, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Walden, George



Walker, Bill (T'side North)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Flynn, Paul


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Allen, Graham
Foster, Derek


Anderson, Donald
Foulkes, George


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fyfe, Maria


Armstrong, Hilary
Galbraith, Sam


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Galloway, George


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Barron, Kevin
George, Bruce


Battle, John
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Beckett, Margaret
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bell, Stuart
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Gordon, Mildred


Bermingham, Gerald
Gould, Bryan


Bidwell, Sydney
Graham, Thomas


Blair, Tony
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Blunkett, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Boateng, Paul
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bradley, Keith
Grocott, Bruce


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Haynes, Frank


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Henderson, Doug


Buchan, Norman
Hinchliffe, David


Buckley, George J.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Caborn, Richard
Holland, Stuart


Callaghan, Jim
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Howells, Geraint


Clay, Bob
Hoyle, Doug


Clelland, David
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Illsley, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Ingram, Adam


Crowther, Stan
John, Brynmor


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cummings, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kennedy, Charles


Dalyell, Tam
Kirkwood, Archy


Darling, Alistair
Lambie, David


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lamond, James


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Leadbitter, Ted


Dewar, Donald
Leighton, Ron


Dixon, Don
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Terry


Doran, Frank
Litherland, Robert


Douglas, Dick
Livsey, Richard


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McAllion, John


Eadie, Alexander
McAvoy, Thomas


Eastham, Ken
McCartney, Ian


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McFall, John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McKelvey, William


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
McLeish, Henry


Fatchett, Derek
Maclennan, Robert


Faulds, Andrew
McTaggart, Bob


Fearn, Ronald
Madden, Max


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G' n)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fisher, Mark
Marek, Dr John


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)






Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Pike, Peter L.


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Primarolo, Dawn


Martlew, Eric
Quin, Ms Joyce


Maxton, John
Radice, Giles


Meacher, Michael
Randall, Stuart


Meale, Alan
Redmond, Martin


Michael, Alun
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Reid, Dr John


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Richardson, Jo


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Rogers, Allan


Morgan, Rhodri
Rooker, Jeff


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Rowlands, Ted


Mowlam, Marjorie
Ruddock, Joan


Mullin, Chris
Salmond, Alex


Murphy, Paul
Sedgemore, Brian


Nollist, Dave
Sheerman, Barry


O'Brien, William
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


O'Neill, Martin
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Short, Clare


Parry, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Patchett, Terry
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Pendry, Tom
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)





Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Spearing, Nigel
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wigley, Dafydd


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Stott, Roger
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winnick, David


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dennis
Wray, Jimmy


Vaz, Keith
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wall, Pat



Wallace, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Walley, Joan
Mr. Ray Powell and Mr. Dennis Canavan.


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)



Wareing, Robert N.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third times, and passed.

Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties

Mr. Speaker: I have selected amendments (d) and (e), in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), and amendment (h), in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). I suggest

That, in the opinion of this House, as from 11th June 1987, the provisions of this Resolution should have effect, instead of those of the Resolution of 20th March 1975 (as amended), in relation to the giving of financial assistance to any Opposition party in this House, to assist that party in carrying out its Parliamentary business:—

1.—(1) Financial assistance shall be available under this paragraph to a party at any time if at that time one of the following conditions is satisfied with respect to the party, that is to say—

(a) there are at that time at least two Members of this House who are members of the party and who were elected at the previous General Election after contesting it as candidates for the party; or
(b) there is at that time one such Member who was so elected and the aggregate of the votes cast in favour of all the party's candidates at that Election was at least 150,000

(2) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given under this paragraph to any party in respect of the expenses incurred by it in any year shall be the aggregate of—

(a) £2,550 for each seat won by its candidates at that Election; and
(b) £5·10 for every 200 votes cast for its candidates at that Election

(3) No financial assistance is available under this paragraph in respect of—

(a) expenses incurred on or after 1st January 1988 by the Liberal Alliance or the SDP Alliance; or
(b) expenses incurred by the SLD or the SDP at any time before the next General Election after the passing of this Resolution

(4) In this Resolution—

"the SLD" means the Social and Liberal Democrats;
"the SDP" means the party known as the SDP at the date on which this Resolution is passed;
"the Liberal Alliance" means the party which contested the 1987 General Election as the "Liberal/Alliance"; and
"the SDP Alliance" means the party which contested that Election as the "SDP/Alliance"

2.—(1) Financial assistance shall he available under this paragraph to the SLD
and the SDP in respect of expenses incurred by them on or after 1st January 1988 and before the next General Election after that date

(2) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given under this paragraph to the SLD in respect of expenses incurred in any year shall be the aggregate of—

(a) an amount calculated in accordance with paragraph 1(2) above by reference to the seats won by and votes cast for the Liberal Alliance's candidates at the 1987 General Election; and
(b) two-fifths of an amount so calculated by reference to the seats won by and votes cast for the SDP Alliance's candidates at that Election

(3) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may he given under this paragraph to the SDP in respect of expenses incurred in any year shall he three-fifths of the amount calculated as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b) above

(4) The maximum amount of financial assistance available to the SLD apart from this sub-paragraph in respect of expenses incurred in the year beginning 1st January 1988 shall be reduced by the amount of the financial assistance given to the Liberal Alliance before the passing of this Resolution in respect of expenses so incurred

(5) Financial assistance for the SDP shall be determined as if at all times on and after 1st January 1988 and before the passing of this Resolution its representation in this House had consisted of those Members who are members of that party at the date on which this Resolution is passed

3.—(1) Any claims for financial assistance under this Resolution are to be made to the Accounting Officer of the House; and a party claiming such assistance shall—

(a) furnish that Officer with a statement of the facts on which the claim is based;
(b) certify to that Officer that the expenses in respect of which the assistance is claimed have been incurred exclusively in relation to the party's Parliamentary business; and
(c) as soon as practicable after each 31st December following the passing of this Resolution, furnish that Officer with the certificate of an independent professional auditor to the effect that all expenses in respect of which the party claimed financial assistance during the twelve months ending with that date were incurred as mentioned in paragraph (b) above

(2) Sub-paragraph (1)(c) above shall not apply in relation to financial assistance given on or after 1st January 1988 in respect of expenses incurred before that date by the Liberal Alliance or the SDP Alliance

to the House that we proceed with the debate and I shall call upon the hon. Members to move their amendments at the end

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,

4.—(1) In the case of any year in which there is a General Election—

(a) the period ending immediately before the day of the Election, and
(b) the period beginning with that day,

shall be treated for the purposes of this Resolution as separate years, but the maximum amount of financial assistance available to any party in respect of any period so treated shall be reduced correspondingly

(2) In this Resolution "year" means a year beginning with 1st January

5. The cost of providing financial assistance shall be borne on the House of Commons: members' salaries etc. Vote

The House will know from what I said last week that, for some time, I have regarded the passage of this motion as a task involving some difficulties. Certainly, bringing proposals on this matter before the House has, in the past, been a thankless task for my predecessors. Not only that, but it has been an issue arousing very varied opposition. It is hard to think of many subjects which would unite my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) all in the same Lobby, as this scheme for financial assistance did on its introduction in 1975. I hope that it will be helpful to the House if I deal briefly with the scheme's history before turning to my conclusions of the review of the arrangements and the motion before us

The scheme was put forward by the then Leader of the House, Mr. Edward Short, now Lord Glenamara. It is after him that it takes the name by which it is usually known. It was originally intended to form part of a larger programme designed to strengthen parliamentary institutions. This particular element was to provide financial assistance to Opposition parties in carrying out their essential parliamentary duties at Westminster. The assistance was not intended to cover all expenses incurred by the Opposition in performing their parliamentary duties, but to be a contribution to them

The formula determining the maximum amount that each party would be eligible to claim annually was based on the results of the preceding general election. Originally, this provided for £500 for each seat won by the party concerned, and £1 for every 200 votes cast for it. The minimum qualification for an Opposition party was that it should have either two Members elected at the preceding general election, or one such Member and at least 150,000 votes in total at that election. Originally, there was also a maximum entitlement on the basis that, in Lord Glenamara's words,
the responsibilities of a principal Opposition party are not necessarily greater because it has, say, 250 rather than 200 Members."—[Official Report, 20 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 1871.]

Since the scheme was set up, the amounts in the formula and the maximum have been increased four times, most recently in 1985. At the beginning of this Parliament they stood at three times their 1975 level—£1,500 for each seat won at the preceding general election and £3 for every 200 votes gained. The maximum to which the principal Opposition party was entitled stood at £450,000. Throughout, the increases in amounts payable seem to have been determined in something of an ad hoc way, and have not been justified on the basis of any precise linkage to, say, the retail price index. Like so much else at Westminster, it seems to have been more of an art than a science. I began my overall review of the scheme after last year's general election.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend is going into the details of the measure. Could he say a little bit about the principles before he goes on with the detail? My right hon. Friend, I am sure like everybody else in the House, is in favour of a strong, effective and able Opposition. Could my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the Opposition that this House had before the Short money was introduced were more effective and stronger and better than the Opposition that we have today?

Mr. Wakeham: The Opposition immediately before the Short money was introduced were led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am a little surprised by my hon. Friend's question about whether that Opposition was better than the present one. It is not necessarily a great condemnation of the present Opposition to say that they are infinitely less superior than the Opposition at that time. The object of this financial assistance is to improve the workings of the Opposition. Perhaps my hon. Friend and I can agree that there is room for improvement

Mr. Terry Dicks: My right hon. Friend said that this money is to give the Opposition a chance to perform better their essential parliamentary duties. Can the provision of a Mafia for the Leader of the Opposition's office to prevent Back Benchers getting to him be looked upon as being essential parliamentary duties?

Mr. Wakeham: The motion before the House is to provide the money. Within certain limits it is up to the Opposition to decide how best to spend it to improve their performance in Parliament. I cannot go too far in that direction, but I shall tell the House how I intend to tighten the accountability for that money and the way in which it should be spent. The judgment about spending will essentially be for the Opposition parties to make
As I was saying, I began my overall review of the scheme after the general election last year. But while that was continuing, the House agreed one change to the arrangements—the removal of the maximum payable to any one Opposition party. The formula as applied to the 1987 general election would have entitled the Labour party to claim about £494,000 annually, while the maximum restricted it to £450,000. When the House had last approved the arrangements, it had set the maximum just above the total amount to which the formula would then entitle the main Opposition party. My motion sought to maintain that position, which enabled all Opposition parties to claim the full amount available to them under the formula, and that was what the House approved in November last year
The review has gone wider than a simple uprating of the formula, and has included the position of Opposition parties in the House of Lords, the provision of certain staff and office equipment to the main Opposition party, and


arrangements for accountability. And, as the hon. Member for Bolsover pointed out last summer, we have had to consider in particular the arrangements for Members who stood for the alliance parties at the last general election. The main conclusions of my review were set out in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on 24 May, but I will remind the House of them briefly now. I reached them only after consultation with as many Opposition parties as possible
I do not recommend altering the current arrangement for the employment of four officially paid staff in the official Opposition Whips' Office. It seems to me in the interests of the House as a whole that the main Opposition party should have the organisation to be able to respond flexibly to changes which the Government may make in the business of the House. The arrangement whereby certain office equipment, postal facilities and stationery are provided for the official Opposition from departmental Votes would, however, be brought to an end. This predated the Short money scheme and it seems to me that it should properly be turned into a cash benefit and included within it. Certain changes to the accounting procedures have also been proposed: I draw the House's attention to paragraph 3 of the motion. The House will wish to note that in future an independently certified statement should be made annually on behalf of each entitled party that the amounts claimed have been expended in accordance with the resolution of the House
This tightening-up of accountability seems to me particularly desirable because of the considerable increases which I am proposing in the amounts in the formula determining the maximum each party may claim. As the House will see from the motion, they would entitle an opposition party to £2,550 for each seat won at the preceding general election, and £5·10 for every 200 votes gained. The new, higher formula will be retrospective to the beginning of this Parliament, and the Opposition will be able to make further claims for this period, provided that they certify that their claims are for expenses incurred on parliamentary duties at Westminster, as the terms of the resolution allow. It is not my intention to hold a further review in this Parliament
In cash terms, the proposed increases represent a rise of 70 per cent. But it is not as straightforward as that. In determining the amount of the increase we have had regard not only to the increase in costs, particularly staff costs, since the last increase in the amounts available, and the prospective increase in costs for the remainder of this Parliament. We have taken account also of two further elements. The first I have referred to—the ending of the provision of office equipment and certain other facilities to the official Opposition, and its incorporation, as a cash benefit, into the scheme. That enables the minor parties to benefit also in this regard, on a pro rata basis

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: If my hon. Friend intends not to make any further adjustment during the life of this Parliament, how will he take into account further permutations of the Liberals, the Democrats, the SDP and whatever they may call themselves during the next three or four years?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall come to that in the course of my speech, but perhaps I can give my hon. Friend a foretaste of what I intend to do: absolutely nothing
Secondly, we have had regard to the Top Salaries Review Body report No. 24 on parliamentary allowances which makes recommendations about the introduction of a scheme for financal assistance to Opposition parties in the other place. While we have not followed its suggestion of a separate "Short money" scheme, but have instead included it within the existing arrangements, in setting the new amounts we have allowed a substantial element to be allocated for the work in the other place. The exact amount so allocated will, of course, be a matter for each party. I believe that this flexible approach will allow the best use to be made of the money
The very complexity of paragraph 2 of the motion dealing with the arrangements for the erstwhile alliance parties is itself an indication of the difficulty that there has been in seeking an equitable conclusion. Under the strict terms of the 1975 resolution, the SLD is not entitled to any financial assistance, since it is not a party which stood as such at the preceding general election. There is sufficient doubt about the position of their former alliance colleagues, led by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), for financial assistance not to have been available to them since the beginning of this year. In the past, hon. Members' changes of party affiliations have not affected the amounts of Short money available to each Opposition party to claim, and the motion would provide for this to be so in the future, which is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes. However, I believe that it would be inequitable not to make an exception in this case and for this Parliament only —[HoN. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If my hon. Friends will allow me, that is what I am hoping to justify. I will do my best
The motion provides, essentially, for the SLD to be eligible for the amount to which the Liberal-alliance party would have been entitled under the new formula together with two fifths of the amount to which the SDP-alliance would have been entitled. The remaining three fifths of the SDP-alliance entitlement under the formula goes to the right hon. Member for Devonport and his two colleagues. I hope that the whole House will agree—even if the two parties most closely concerned may not—that what I have proposed is a reasonable compromise
I shall return to the amendments which you, Mr. Speaker, have selected when the House has had the benefit of hearing from my hon. Friends the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). But, however persuasive their arguments, I do not believe that I shall be advising the House to accept the amendments. Those in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire would reduce substantially the increase in financial assistance which I have proposed. Given the factors which I have indicated that I had taken into account in determining the increaseincluding the position of the Opposition parties in another place and the ending of certain benefits in kind —I do not believe that the smaller increase which my hon. Friend is proposing would be appropriate

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend because I was frightened that he was going to sit down. Before he sits down, will my right hon. Friend tell the House precisely how much, for example, the Labour party will get under these proposals and how much it would have got before the proposals?

Mr. Wakeham: Yes. I came prepared for that question. Under the existing arrangements the Labour party is entitled to £493,900 and under the proposals in the motion it is entitled to £839,700. As I have stated, the basis is not strictly comparable—[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order

Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether my hon. Friends think that I have given the Labour party too much or too little
My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield would subject the arrangements for financial assistance to annual renewal. I think, however, that it is only reasonable that Opposition parties should be able to plan on the basis of more than one year ahead. [Interruption.] I should have thought that many years ahead would be more sensible. Furthermore, I believe that such a change would only make it more likely that further increases in financial assistance would come to be expected on an annual basis as the resolution was renewed, whereas I hope and intend that the proposals that I have brought before the House will last for the duration of this Parliament
As I suggested a few minutes ago, the Leader of the House rarely finds his proposals on Short money greeted with widespread enthusiasm, and I appreciate that the same will probably be true tonight. Nevertheless, I believe that it is a fair settlement which reflects the significance which I, as Leader of the House, attach to helping Opposition parties at Westminster with the facilities to carry out efficiently their proper parliamentary work. Though it will not, and cannot, do the job of the Opposition, this contribution to their opportunity to perform effectively is an important element of parliamentary life. I commend the motion to the House

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): As always, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has done his very best to do justice to this difficult subject. However, his presentation to the House and attempt to justify the grotesque figure put before us tonight lacked any mention or assessment of the value of the contribution made by the Opposition parties to the work of Parliament. In suggesting to the House that that is crucial in our assessment of the figures, I want to refer to the original proposals made by Mr. Edward Short, as he then was, in March 1975, when he said:
financial assistance should be made available to Opposition parties to assist them in their parliamentary work here at Westminster, and I emphasise that it is here at Westminster only."—[Official Report, 20 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 1869–70.]
That gives the House the clue and important key to how to go about assessing whether the Opposition parties are justified in expecting the sort of money that we have been told about by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House tonight
It is worth bearing in mind—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to this briefly—that when the motion was before the House originally not only were three present members of the Cabinet against the resolution—and I will spare their blushes and not name them now—but Opposition Members were also against the resolution. The hon. Members for Preston (Mrs. Wise), for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Barking (Ms. Richardson), the right hon

Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) were all against the resolution in its original form. I will be very interested to see whether they vote against my right hon. Friend's proposals tonight and whether others will join them in reflecting on the honest position that they took when the roles were reversed and the Labour party was in government and the Conservative party was in opposition. However, that remains to be seen. We all wait to see with great interest what happens

Ms. Clare Short: I declare that I am no relation of Edward Short
Before the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) referred to the voting last time, he referred to the performance of the Opposition. Perhaps we should take into account the performance of all hon. Members in relation to their salaries, given that a large percentage of Conservative Members have other jobs and clearly are not spending time in this House working for their constituents. Should not their salaries take that into account?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Lady anticipates me. I will come to that in a moment. I am sure that the House will want to know something about the contribution that hon. Members make to the workings of the House. Their constituents will want to know that as well. In the motion we are talking about the taxpayer being asked to make a major contribution towards the cost of running the House. In a moment I will refer to how that may be assessed
We should dispose of one possible way to assess the value of the moneys, and that is by the number of Members in each party. For example, in 1975, when the resolution was first suggested, the Labour party had 319 Members; in 1985, when the resolution was reviewed, the Labour party had 209; and in 1988 it had 299 Members. It is obvious from those figures that we are not necessarily considering the number of Members as the criterion, because it could be said that, if a party succeeds in gaining more seats in an election, that would give it an increase in its financial allocation under the existing formula and there might be no need to review it. The Labour party might be quite happy with that if it was not so greedy and grasping about the money that it asks for tonight
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) raised the question of the participation of members of the Opposition in the workings of the House. I have already said that the original deviser of the scheme, Edward Short, said that Westminster must judge the activities of those who attempt to justify the money

Mr. Brian Wilson: When the hon. Gentleman is considering performance in the House, will he take into account the fact that, from the serried ranks of the Tory Members, the Government cannot raise five Members to serve on the Scottish Select Committee?

Mr. Forth: I do not think that I will consider that factor, but I will offer to the House some interesting figures, which are available in the Library, of an analysis of voting by hon. Members in the most recent period available—from January to March—which was carried out by an independent source. It rated Members in descending order depending on the percentage of times that they had voted in Divisions. In the top 10, nine Members were Conservative and one was Labour; in the top 20, 18 were Conservative and two were Labour; in the


top 50, 43 were Conservative and only seven were Labour; and in the top 100, 79 were Conservative and 21 were Labour
A number of matters are apparent from those independently produced figures. First, the contribution made to the work of the House is disproportionately in favour of the Conservative Members, and it is quite obvious that the Opposition contribute little. What is interesting—and I am sure that my hon. Friends have noticed this already—is that I have not yet mentioned any of the minority parties. It will not surprise anyone that the first Liberal to appear on the list of honour comes in at No. 280—[Interruption.] I must concede that a Plaid Cymru Member appears at No. 380. Of the 10 Members who have performed least well, seven come from Northern Ireland and one is a Liberal

Mr. Harold McCusker: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I would be proud if I were last on the list, because for 15 years I have come to the House every week and asked it to cover Northern Ireland matters as it covers matters relating to other parts of the United Kingdom? The House refuses to cover Northern Ireland properly. When it does, I shall vote and participate fully

Mr. Forth: I am sure that the House will be honoured —[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer that."] I am sure that the House will be honoured by the appearance of the hon. Gentleman to plead his case for money for his party, on which we are voting tonight

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way

Mr. John D. Taylor: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order

Mr. Forth: You protest too much, Mr. Speaker
We have now put our finger on a very sensitive point, because we have known for a long time—the figures I have given confirm it—that the Opposition parties do not make a contribution to the working of the House. How my right hon. Friend will——

Mr. Roy Beggs: rose

Mr. Forth: No, I shall not give way.

Several Hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members may have an opportunity to make their contributions in a moment

Mr. John D. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker

Mr. Speaker: Order. There may be a point of disagreement, but not I think a point of order

Mr. Beggs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The information being given to the House by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) about Northern Ireland Members is incorrect. When Northern Ireland Members were here all through the night, their votes were not recorded

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is definitely a point of argument

Mr. Forth: All that I can say is that that was a genuinely Irish point of order—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In

case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] In case hon. Members may think—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Now settle down, settle down
In case hon. Members think that this is all too theoretical, I shall give a specific example from last Thursday night, when the Opposition chose to keep the House up until a late hour. Not only was that a frivolous waste of taxpayers' money, but even worse, when it came to the vote at 2 o'clock on Friday morning, 114 Conservative Members did their duty, but fewer than 20 Labour Members did theirs
If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House thinks that that is a reasonable basis on which to shower money upon the Opposition parties, I regret that he will not have my support—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that hon. Members should settle down, and I agree with him

Mr. Forth: I shall make only one more point because many of my hon. Friends wish to make different points. It is obvious that the basis on which the claim before the House has been founded is erroneous. I have tried to show that if we assess the contribution made by the Opposition parties, there is no basis for increasing the amount given to them
My amendments seek to take the figure that was set in 1985 and, very generously, index it by the full retail prices index improvement of 16 per cent. since then. That is the basis of the figures offered in my amendments, and which I hope the House will consider and vote in favour of. The public will be quite unable to understand the extent of the increase that we are being asked to approve in the light of what I have told the House about the true performance and commitment of members of the Opposition parties in the work of the House
I hope that all my colleagues will think most carefully before they are seduced by the arguments of my right hon. Friend, who tried to put them as fairly as only he could do, but who was really batting on a quite impossible wicket in suggesting that the Opposition parties deserve the enormous increase set out in the motion. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept that even on the basis of recent performance, or of performance over a sustained period, we cannot justify anything more than the generous increase offered in my amendments. I hope that, on that basis, hon. Members will follow me into the Lobby and vote in favour of my amendments

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I think that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) has more than a little cheek. [Interruption.] I am told that he used to be in the Common Market where there were barrowloads of money and he used to be the barrow boy who was wheeling it. [Interruption.] I think that he has some cheek to tell us about parliamentary performance
The hon. Gentleman talked about 20 of us keeping 140 Conservative Members up all night. Why were there 140? There were 140 because the Government need at least 100 to close a debate. On Thursday night, when I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite made it to the post, we had another what is loosely called filibuster, but it was all straight and above board. He did not turn up for work
The hon. Gentleman could have been on a bisque—a French word for playing truant—which the Tories use regularly. If you, Mr. Speaker, went out of the main entrance to the Chamber—I know you do not because you have to stick to your own little spot—on occasions you would find a notice on the door of the Tory Whips' Office saying, "No bisque today". When the hon. Gentleman does turn up, he has obviously seen the notice
There will be other occasions when 20 Opposition Members will keep more than 100 Conservative Members here—just as there were such occasions when the Conservative party was in opposition before 1979. There is the question of using personnel in a sensible way, so there are occasions like the other night
The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) has a point. That night, about 30 of us tried to get in 52 Divisions. We were helping the hon. Members from Northern Ireland. The Deputy Speaker—it was not you, Mr. Speaker—stopped us working properly. He introduced Standing Order No. 39 and had us jumping up and down every two minutes
Voting is not a very good way of measuring things here. I think that it ought to be the best measurement. After 18 years it would be easy for me to say that, but there are other ways of measuring parliamentary performance. I say that from a position of strength. There are hon. Members who work on Standing Committees and that is not measured in the Sunday Times. There are other contributions to a parliamentary performance, there are other ways in which we are prevented from carrying out our parliamentary duties
As is well known, one in eight Tory Back Benchers is connected with the Lloyd's insurance market. I am sure that that will prevent them from turning up for work occasionally, unless there is a notice on the door, "No bisque today". Seventy Tory Back Benchers have connections with firms that make money in the dark alleyways of South Africa. I am not going to read them out, but I am sure that when they have directorships in company boardrooms they will run to the Tory Chief Whip—when he is not engaged in blackmailing tactics against the Opposition—to get some time off
There are other things that we should measure when discussing Short money. I speak as one who, at the time, gave evidence against it. The Government have other forms of money. For instance, the Prime Minister is spending more than £5 million of taxpayers' money to staff her office and provide other facilities at No. 10 Downing street. When the previous Prime Minister left in 1979 he spent £1·25 million per annum. Notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister is very concerned about spending taxpayers' money—she is always telling us that the Government have no money; it all belongs to the taxpayer —the moment she moved into No. 10 she increased that sum to £2 million, then £3 million, then £4 million and in the last count for which we have figures it is now more than £5 million. If the National Health Service had been given extra cash, based on the same proportionate increase, we would have £28 billion for the NHS and there would not be a waiting list. That is what the Government do with taxpayers' money. The Government have chauffeur-driven cars. All Governments have chauffeur-driven cars; I am

not making a party political point. That is part of the Government's way of doing things, but it does not apply to most Opposition Members
By and large, bearing in mind the benefits that Tory Members gain—[Interruption.] The barrow boy is going to see whether there is a bisque tomorrow. Bearing in mind that the Tories took advantage of this scheme, which was introduced by Lord Glenamara—then Ted Short—they have a cheek to argue as they have done when attacking the Labour Front Bench for receiving the money
We are debating this matter today rather than in the immediate aftermath of the last general election, not because of the official Opposition but because of the Liberals and the Social Democrats. It has nothing to do with the Labour party, as is well known. The Leader of the House has faced a dilemma. He did not tell the Liberals and the SDP to merge, but the moment they started talking, he knew that he had a problem
In case the Leader of the House had not thought about it, I reminded him in the middle of August. I asked, "Are you aware that mergers are taking place?" There was a group, the provos, led by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), that said that it would not merge. It struck me immediately that the Leader of the House would have a problem with the Short money. How would he decide? In the last general election on 11 June 1987, there was not a vote for the SLD—the salads. In all the election addresses there was no reference to the fact that, when they were elected, they would form a new party and split away
The Leader of the House did not know how to divide the money. He wanted to be fair not only to his Back Benchers but to the Liberals and the Social Democrats, but he did not know how. He has been puzzling ever since. He has come up with a solution but, frankly, he could have done with Pythagoras. It is not the brightest solution of all time. The right hon. Gentleman is asking us to pass retrospective legislation. He wants us to say that we do not know that the Liberals and the SDP have merged. He wants us to put a blindfold on and say that there are not two parties—one down one end of the Bench and one at the other end. He wants us to admit that the right hon. Member for Devonport, who has gone for a personality transplant where is he?—does not exist and has never been leader or joint leader. The Leader of the House wants us to wipe all that out of our memory, but I cannot. It is ultra vires. If this matter went before a local authority—except Westminster—councillors would be surcharged if they passed it
We now have to refer to the Liberal alliance and the SDP alliance—for money, not for anything else. There is one point that has caused a problem: the group must be called the SLD. But some of the Liberals do not like that. Some of them say, "I am a Liberal" and put it on ballot papers in local government elections; some people say, "I am a Social Democrat" and put that on the ballot papers. I did a count in the last local government elections in May and found that there were seven different varieties. It will soon be called the Heinz party! The Tory Government have named them, so when they stand in the next election —I hope that they are listening—they will have to take this title, or they will be in trouble
We have a dog's dinner here. The Leader of the House has tried to make a seven-course dinner out of a pan of boiling water and he has failed

Mr. Roger King: Amendment (h) deals with the establishment of an annual review of this resolution. Oddly enough, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) endorsed my reasons for thinking that we should have an annual review. Such a review is essential because it is appropriate for the House to have a stocktaking of the political parties and what they stand for each and every year so that the outside world—and, above all, hon. Members—know exactly who stands for what and what is who. As things stand at the moment, it is a great problem for us all
The main Opposition party, the Labour party, is no more or less than a brand name. It is a loose mishmash of warring factions, struggling with leadership bids and seeking to define its policies. No one realy knows what it stands for. It is as silly to say that the Labour party stands for Labour views as it is to say that British-American Tobacco simply stands for tobacco. The Labour party is a pot-pourri of policies that no one can really understand. It is split in its leadership and its policies
We would best serve the House by debating the resolution each year, the better to understand the political views represented in the House. At the moment they are certainly not clear. We have a number of political beasts on the Opposition Benches, and they need to be defined. If we are passing such sums over to Her Majesty's Opposition, we need to know what the Opposition stand for. An annual stocktaking would polarise attitudes on the Opposition Benches, redefine to the electorate exactly what the Opposition stand for and produce, out of muddle and confusion, a degree of clarity. If the Opposition cannot provide that clarity, they will not get the money; it is as simple as that
In addition to the official Opposition we have a plethora of other political parties. The motion lists the various names—something for which I am most grateful as a glossary of terms is long overdue. In considering these middle-of-the-road outfits, we cannot be absolutely sure that the definitions in the resolution will hold good indefinitely—or at least until we come to debate the resolution again. Suppose that we have another change and the SLD is in the middle of a leadership election. Suppose that the new management wants to rename the party "The Ashdown Bombers" or "The Democratic Chapter". If we debate such resolutions annually, we can examine and approve the names of parties and recognise them as official parties each year, instead of the reclothing of old ideas in new brand names occurring constantly throughout our parliamentary life
The tiniest party of all is still known as the SDP, but its members are generally referred to as the "Owenites". Nowhere in the motion does the term "Owenites" appear. That is a shame because it warrants public emphasis and representation. That is what the party is all about. It is led by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and undoubtedly it will continue to be led by him
An annual review would go a long towards establishing whether that party has turned up its toes politically and faded away from the scene or whether it still exists. If we hand over the money, there is no guarantee that that political party will not pack up and go home the next day, clutching the purse to its heart. One third of it is not here, so an annual review would help to overcome that problem. Such a review would help to establish whether a political

party that we have named today is still alive in 12 months' time. It would afford this House an opportunity to tell the outside world that that political party is still alive and kicking and in business
An annual review would enable the House to determine, among other things, the validity of political parties. They need some financial assistance. I do not agree with the main thrust of the motion, but to give them a blank cheque indefinitely, without it being renewed on an annual basis, would be against the public interest
I listened with interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) who commented on the Opposition's work rate. In my view, there is one person and one person alone who should receive most of the Opposition funding, the hon. Member for Bolsover. He should have the right to disburse it according to the performance, in his eyes, of many of his colleagues on his side of the House. I believe that he would end up a very rich man—or his constituents would end up rich
The review that I have proposed would create the sort of discipline that we need. It would create a sensible approach to the debates that we must have. We disburse taxpayers' money, and they are entitled to know that it is spent wisely
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House put forward one major argument against my amendment, which I had not fully appreciated when I tabled it. He said that if we have annual reviews there will be annual increases because the Opposition parties will argue that the subvention that they receive should be increased. That is an extremely valid argument
My argument has equal merit. We should debate the matter every year. However, my right hon. Friend has persuaded me that it may prove to be disadvantageous for the House to carry out such an exercise. I do not therefore intend to press my amendment to a Division. However, I believe that in the short term it would have been of benefit to have an annual review so that the House would know what are the policies of the Opposition parties, who is leading them and whether those political parties are still alive.

Mr. James Kilfedder: This seems to be an occasion for Opposition party bashing, but the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has demolished the biased arguments that have been advanced. All the Opposition parties in this House have received financial assistance. The arguments are hypocritical because the day will come when the Conservative party will be in opposition and when it will be looking for this money
I can speak with a degree of sincerity about this matter because I am the only hon. Member who does not receive, and who has never received, a penny of the Short money. Not since it was established 13 years ago have I received a penny of it, and I shall not receive a penny of it after the motion has been approved. Therefore, I have every reason to complain, if any hon. Member has, about the scheme
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), in his speech, attacked seven Unionists for their poor attendance in Divisions. I hope that he will confirm that I am not included among them and that my record is extremely good

Mr. Forth: Search the bottom of the list as I might for the hon. Gentleman's name, I could not find it there

Mr. Kilfedder: If the hon. Gentleman looks higher up the list he will not find it there, either. My name is well up in that list
Is it right that I should be excluded from the scheme? Only one other hon. Gentleman is excluded, and he is the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), who does not take his seat in the House. I am the only qualifying hon. Member of all 650 who is excluded. Is that fair and equitable? The Leader of the House said that the scheme was equitable, but it cannot be so if it deliberately excludes even one hon. Member
Several hon. Members have pointed out that the purpose of the scheme is to assist Opposition Members in their work and parliamentary performance. If so, no Opposition Member should be excluded from its benefits. Opening the debate, the Leader of the House quoted with approval the words of Lord Glenamara, when he said that the onus on a party with just two Members was as great as the onus on a party with 200 Members. That sentiment should include myself, as the representative of my party in this Chamber
One complaint made against the scheme is that the taxpayer, whether he likes it or not, must contribute through his taxes to the Opposition parties. Not only must my constituents in North Down contribute against their will to Opposition parties in this Parliament, but their representative is also shamefully denied the right to participate in the scheme. I am sure that hon. Members in all quarters of the House recognise that an injustice is being done to the people of my constituency, to my party, and to myself
I am totally dedicated to the parliamentary system. I am here throughout the week, every week, as hon. Members in all quarters of the House know. I have demonstrated my commitment time after time, yet many distinguished and well-known hon. Members are not often here. They benefit from a scheme instituted to help their performance in Parliament, the benefit of which is denied me
It is necessary that Opposition parties should receive financial assistance towards their work. The Government party has the full might of the Whitehall machinery behind it, and something must be done to provide a proper balance. The money itself cannot provide a full balance but it can go some way towards doing so. I believe in the principle of that money being paid, because a strong Opposition is essential to any democracy. It is left to me, as I am excluded from the scheme, to abstain—because I cannot support a scheme that is patently inequitable. Therefore, my name will not be on the Division record— but I hope it will not be said that I was absent tonight

Mr. Edward Leigh: I agree with the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) that Opposition parties need some financial support. Some harsh words have been said today, but mine will not be harsh. They will be in support of the Social Democrats. No one else seems to be speaking for them, so I felt that I should do so
The Leader of the House is a kindly and solicitous man, but the burden he has had to carry in sorting out this dispute between the two centre parties must have been very

wearisome indeed. After all, it seems that when it comes to giving money to their erstwhile friends, the spirit of the members of the new model Liberal party is in inverse proportion to the spirit of togetherness which they proclaim to be the apogee of what nationhood is all about. How mean they have been. I should have thought that the fair, sensible, liberal, middle, statesmanlike way would have been for the House to decide that the loot should be split between the Social and Liberal Democrats and the SDP split down the middle; the judgment of Solomon
After all, this time last year the SDP was in existence; it had a constitution, a leader and aims and principles. One year later that party is still in existence. It has the same constitution, the majority of its Members of Parliament are the same and its leader is the same. [Interruption.] I do not agree with those who say it does not have aims and principles. That is why I am speaking on its behalf
But what of the new Social and Liberal Democrats—the successors of those sour-faced types of the last century, many of whom supported Gladstone's party, who proclaimed their Christian principles inside the Church and, as soon as it came to spending their own money outside, were mean?
I should be interested to know whether there is anything in the rumour circulating in the corridors of the House that the Social and Liberal Democrats want to grab no less than nineteen twenty-seconds of this Short money —the overwhelming majority of it. In other words, they want to base what they get solely on the number of seats, despite the fact that over the years they have benefited so much from this money being allocated in terms not just of seats but of votes cast
Why should the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) alone be deprived of the £5·10 for every 200 votes being given to every other Opposition party? What perfidy has he committed that the Leader of the House should deny him the money that he is due? Has he changed his party? Has he produced a dead parrot manifesto? Has he stormed out of merger negotiations in tears? No. He stands like a rock againt hypocrisy and cant. Yet he alone is deprived of what he is due. Is he to be punished just because, like Banquo clanking his chains, he is the spectre of the new centre party? The fair and honourable course would have been to have split the money—half for the Social and Liberal Democrats and half for the SDP

Mr. Frank Dobson: I have been advised that perhaps I should not be my usual affable self and that I should certainly be careful not to upset the Government too much lest they vote the motion down. Indeed, I wondered whether I should do what we read in Oliver Twist:
A council was held: lots were cast who should walk up to the master after supper that evening, and ask for more; and it fell to Oliver Twist.
Tonight it falls to me to ask for more, and I have some support from the Top Salaries Review Body
An alternative approach would be to say:
Although the House has enjoyed this debate, I have been rather depressed by it because it has been characterised by a degree of hypocrisy and humbug which I cannot remember having been equalled.—[Official Report, 13 February 1978; Vol. 944, c. 198.]
That was said by Mr. Francis Pym, then Shadow Leader of the House, when we were debating the Opposition


parties' financial assistance. But that sentiment on his part would not be true tonight, in view of the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who shot hypocrisy out of the water
In 1975, the then Labour Government put to the House a motion to provide funds for the parliamentary work of Opposition parties. That provided £150,000 a year for the Tory party and a lot less for the other parties. The proposal was carried by 142 votes to 47, and the Tory party took the money every subsequent year it was in opposition
Tonight we are asked to support a Government motion to increase the maximum sum for this Parliament to £839,000. Naturally we support the increase, which follows the recommendation last year of the Top Salaries Review Body that money for Opposition parties should be reviewed in the light of the substantial increases in secretarial allowances for individual Members and what the review body referred to as the relatively modest increase in Short money since its inception
Even when the new maximum is approved, it will represent only a fivefold increase in the Short money sum of f 150,000 set in 1975. That compares unfavourably with the increase in the Members' maximum secretarial allowance over the same period which has been increased sevenfold from £2,910 in 1975 to £21,302 in 1987–88. Over the same period the total sum paid out to Members for secretarial allowances by the Fees Office has increased eightfold from £1,636,000 in 1975 to £13,780,000 in 1987–88. If the Short money had been increased proportionately, the proposal before us would be for £1,263,000, not £839,000. So the Short money actually falls short of the increase in Members' secretarial spending by £424,000. I do not know whether any Tory Members have failed to take up the increase in secretarial allowances

Mr. Ian Bruce: Is it not the case that one of the reasons Opposition parties required the extra money was that secretarial allowances were so pitifully low that it was necessary for the Opposition to employ additional research assistants? Now that we have a sensible allowance for secretarial expenses, surely we should be reducing the Short money, not increasing it

Mr. Dobson: If that is the quality of logic which is being employed on the Tory side tonight, it must compare with the speeches on the propriety of the matter in 1980 when the House was graced by speeches from the Tory side by Mr. Keith Best and the then hon. Member for Basildon, Mr. Harvey Proctor, who told the House that it was improper for the Opposition to get the money. The propriety which they showed that night is reflected in the logic shown by the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce)
If we look for another comparison, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has rightly mentioned the Prime Minister's Office. I try to be fair to the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend talked only about the increase in expenditure in the Prime Minister's Office since she came to power. To be fair, we should consider the increase which has taken place since 1975. However, we cannot go back to 1975 because the figures do not exist; we can only go back as far as 1976 when the spending on the Prime Minister's Office was £934,000. The figure for this year is £4,774,000, a ninefold increase. If we had a ninefold increase in the Short

money, it would be £1,393,000. I should make it clear to my hon. Friends that I have played no part in negotiating the sum we are discussing tonight
Some people have been opposed in principle to public funds being allocated to Opposition parties. I do riot share that view, but at least it is tolerable. Tonight, and in one or two recent debates, we have seen that a new breed of Tories has decided in its wisdom that it will judge whether the Opposition deserve the money. It is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that the spectator sees most of the game, but it has never been claimed that Government supporters are best placed to judge the Opposition and we reject that proposition tonight
For one thing, most people would find it hard to regard Government supporters as neutral. If they were neutral, the Tory Chief Whip would want to know why. For another thing, it is rather peculiar to work out how they would judge the effectiveness. The duty of the Opposition is to oppose, but being opposed is not an enjoyable process and the more vigorous the opposition, the less pleasant the process, yet we are asked to believe that effective opposition is warmly appreciated by the Government
Let us envisage the scene at the Department of Health and Social Security after health and social services questions. Does anyone really believe that the Secretary of State arrives back at his Private Office and says, "Oh, Robin Cook ran us ragged today. I really think that the Opposition deserve that money". Last week, did the Tory Chief Whip go back to No. 12 Downing street and say, "By Jove, Labour kept us up all night. I think we ought to pay them the Short money immediately". That is a preposterous concept and we entirely reject it
I shall deal briefly with the red herring thrown in by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) He suggested that Government Members voted more heavily than Opposition Members in this Parliament. If he had not just looked at the figures in the Sunday Times, he would have discovered that there is a whole series that runs back for decades. In every Parliament, Government Members vote more often than Opposition Members for the very reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, that we would be as daft as brushes if we stopped up all night in the same numbers as Government Members when we can keep the Government up by just having 20 hon. Members here
Opposition Members welcome the motion tonight, not just because of the money, but because, at long last, the Leader of the House has discharged his obligation to put the motion before the House, to speak in favour of it and to vote in favour of it. We hope, therefore, that this is the last that we shall hear of any suggestion from Conservative Members on the Front or Back Benches that they will decide on the effectiveness of the Opposition. We can never have a situation where the money for the Opposition depends upon the grace and favour of the Government. The proposition was never put forward by Lord Glenamara, Harold Wilson, Jim Callaghan or anyone else and it should not be put forward by any Government, either now or in the future

Mr. David Martin: I urge my hon. Friends not to vote to cut off or cut down the funding for the Labour party in this House because to many of us, in so far as it keeps the Labour party's antiques road show in


being, it is a great help. We have been in office for nine years on the strength of it and less than £1 million a year appears to me to be money well spent, far more so in promoting, as it unfailingly does, the merits of a Conservative Government year after year. The expenditure is far more worthwhile than all the glossy literature from the Department of Trade and Industry and all that produced by Conservative Central Office at its most inspiring
With our majority, we must not be unfair to the Opposition. We must take serious note of their many problems because the shadow Leader of the House has very little freedom of action when the leader of the Labour party is in the process, as he is, of bartering the party's policies, in defence of which many Labour Members are bravely prepared to die at yet another general election. The party's former leader, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot)—the biographer of Byron—could tell Opposition Members a thing or two from his research. He could tell them about the problems of the shadow Leader of the House because his hero, Bryon, wrote, in "The Isle of Greece"—this is very germane:
Trust not for freedom to the Franks— They have a king who buys and sells; In native swords and native ranks
The only hope of courage dwells
We must be charitable and make sure that at this delicate time they get their money. The Leader of the Opposition and his deputy are being pursued for their places at the top. We must not oppose the motion but must raise our sights to the wider benefits of giving them their money

Mr. John Cartwright: In view of the no doubt helpfully intended comments of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), I had better make absolutely clear the attitude of the SDP to the settlement before the House. The Leader of the House clearly had an extremely difficult task in trying to resolve what to do about the money to which the two former alliance parties were entitled. If anybody doubts that, he should look at the motion. Three quarters of it is devoted to that issue and that makes it clear that that was the most difficult task to sort out
I disagree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on one point. I would argue that the motion clearly recognises that the merger has taken place. Unfortunately for those who wanted there to be only one party after the merger, there are two and they are not exactly the same as the two that were there before the merger. I must say to the hon. Member for Bolsover that I have no idea what my former colleagues in the SLD think about being described in the motion as the Social and Liberal Democrats. I have absolutely no problems about being described as a member of the SDP. I have been an SDP Member of Parliament since 1981, and that is what I shall stay

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman says that he has been an SDP Member of Parliament since 1981. Can he tell us how often in his long career he has been elected on the exclusive ticket of the SDP?

Mr. Cartwright: I was elected as an SDP Member of Parliament in two general elections in 1983 and 1987. I am always described in my local papers as SDP and there is no argument about that
The Leader of the House is logical in going for the distribution of the money in accordance with the division of the former SDP Members of Parliament. He is dividing the resources that would have gone to the SDP in the proportion of three to two. That has always seemed to us to be a fair and reasonable solution to the problem. Since the whole purpose of the money is to support Members of Parliament, it seems entirely logical that the money should be divided on the basis of the way in which Members of Parliament divided. We could hardly resile from that approach since it is one that we put forward on many occasions in negotiations with our former colleagues, in discussions with the House authorities and in many other places. It seems to be a fair, reasonable and logical solution to the problem, and we support it

Mr. Wakeham: I sense that the House wishes to decide on this matter. I said earlier that I would have something to say about the amendments moved by my hon. Friends. I am lost for words to try to persuade my hon. Friends not to support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). My hon. Friend seemed to make his judgment on what he perceived the Opposition to be worth and his argument was overwhelming. My judgment was not made on that basis but on what I think the Opposition need to help them to carry out their parliamentary duties
My proposals are for maxima, but if the Opposition have listened to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire and do not think that they are worth the money, perhaps he will shame them into not drawing all of it. That is a matter for the Opposition and not for me
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) supported the general thrust of my argument and that he will not press his amendment. My worry about his amendment was mainly that I do not think that I could stand the tension of a debate such as this every year. The highlight of the evening was the speech by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I shall tell my wife about that speech when I get home which I hope will be fairly soon. I urge the House to accept the motion

Amendment proposed: (d), in line 17, leave out `£2,550' and insert `£1,740'.—[Mr. Forth.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 11, Noes 284

Division No. 373]
[11.49 pm


AYES


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Bright, Graham
Watts, John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)



Conway, Derek
Tellers for the Ayes:


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Mr. Eric Forth and Mr. Edward Leigh.


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)



Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Amess, David


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Anderson, Donald


Alton, David
Arbuthnot, James






Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foulkes, George


Armstrong, Hilary
Fraser, John


Atkins, Robert
Freeman, Roger


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fyfe, Maria


Baldry, Tony
Galbraith, Sam


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Barron, Kevin
George, Bruce


Batiste, Spencer
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Battle, John
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beckett, Margaret
Graham, Thomas


Beggs, Roy
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bell, Stuart
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bermingham, Gerald
Grist, Ian


Blunkett, David
Grocott, Bruce


Boateng, Paul
Ground, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Boswell, Tim
Hanley, Jeremy


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hardy, Peter


Boyes, Roland
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bradley, Keith
Harris, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hawkins, Christopher


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hayward, Robert


Buchan, Norman
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Henderson, Doug


Buckley, George J.
Hind, Kenneth


Butcher, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butterfill, John
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Caborn, Richard
Holland, Stuart


Callaghan, Jim
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howard, Michael


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carrington, Matthew
Howells, Geraint


Cartwright, John
Hoyle, Doug


Chope, Christopher
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cryer, Bob
Illsley, Eric


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Ingram, Adam


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jack, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Robert


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kennedy, Charles


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Key, Robert


Day, Stephen
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dewar, Donald
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Dixon, Don
Kirkwood, Archy


Dobson, Frank
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Doran, Frank
Knowles, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lamond, James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dutfy, A. E. P.
Lang, Ian


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Ivan


Durant, Tony
Leadbitter, Ted


Eadie, Alexander
Lee, John (Pendle)


Eastham, Ken
Leighton, Ron


Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Lewis, Terry


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Lightbown, David


Fallon, Michael
Lilley, Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Livsey, Richard


Faulds, Andrew
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Favell, Tony
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Fearn, Ronald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Flynn, Paul
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
McAvoy, Thomas


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McCartney, Ian


Foster, Derek
MacGregor, Rt Hon John





McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Maclean, David
Ruddock, Joan


Maclennan, Robert
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


McLoughlin, Patrick
Ryder, Richard


Major, Rt Hon John
Sackville, Hon Tom


Malins, Humfrey
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Maples, John
Salmond, Alex


Marek, Dr John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Short, Clare


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Skinner, Dennis


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Maxton, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Meacher, Michael
Soley, Clive


Meale, Alan
Spearing, Nigel


Michael, Alun
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Steinberg, Gerry


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stern, Michael


Miller, Sir Hal
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Stott, Roger


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Sumberg, David


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Morgan, Rhodri
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mullin, Chris
Trippier, David


Needham, Richard
Turner, Dennis


Neubert, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Vaz, Keith


Nicholls, Patrick
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


O'Brien, William
Waldegrave, Hon William


Neill, Martin
Wallace, James


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walley, Joan


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Ward, John


Parry, Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Patnick, Irvine
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Wareing, Robert N.


Pike, Peter L.
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Portillo, Michael
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wheeler, John


Primarolo, Dawn
Widdecombe, Ann


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wigley, Dafydd


Randall, Stuart
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Redmond, Martin
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Rhodes James, Robert
Wilson, Brian


Richardson, Jo
Winnick, David


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Worthington, Tony


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)



Roe, Mrs Marion
Tellers for the Noes:


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Frank Cook.


Rooker, Jeff

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, as from 11th June 1987, the provisions of this Resolution should have effect, instead of those of the Resolution of 20th March 1975 (as amended), in relation to the giving of financial assistance to any Opposition party in this House, to assist that party in carrying out its Parliamentary business:—
1.—(1) Financial assistance shall be available under this paragraph to a party at any time if at that time one of the following conditions is satisfied with respect to the party., that is to say—

(a) there are at that time at least two Members of this House who are members of the party and who were elected at the previous General Election after contesting it as candidates for the party; or


(b) there is at that time one such Member who was so elected and the aggregate of the votes cast in favour of all the party's candidates at that Election was at least 150,000

(2) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given under this paragraph to any party in respect of the expenses incurred by it in any year shall be the aggregate of—

(a) £2,550 for each seat won by its candidates at the Election; and
(b) £5·10 for every 200 votes cast for its candidates at that Election

(3) No financial assistance is available under this paragraph in respect of

(a) expenses incurred on or after 1st January 1988 by the Liberal Alliance or the SDP Alliance; or
(b) expenses incurred by the SLD or the SDP at any time before the next General Election after the passing of this Resolution

(4) In this Resolution—

"the SLD" means the Social and Liberal Democrats;
"the SDP" means the part known as the SDP at the date on which this Resolution is passed;
"the Liberal Alliance" means the party which contested the 1987 General Election as the "Liberal/Alliance"; and
"the SDP Alliance" means the party which contested that Election as the "SDP/Alliance"

2.—(1) Financial assistance shall be available under this paragraph to the SLD and the SDP in respect of expenses incurred by them on or after 1st January 1988 and before the next General Election after that date

(2) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given under this paragraph to the SLD in respect of expenses incurred in any year shall be the aggregate of—

(a) an amount calculated in accordance with paragraph 1(2) above by reference to the seats won by and votes cast for the Liberal Alliance's candidates at the 1987 General Election; and
(b) two-fifths of an amount so calculated by reference to the seats won by the and votes cast for the SDP Alliance's candidates at that Election

(3) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given under this paragraph to the SDP in respect of expenses incurred in any year shall be three-fifths of the amount calculated as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b) above

(4) The maximum amount of financial assistance available to the SLD from this sub-paragraph in respect of expenses

incurred in the year beginning 1st January 1988 shall be reduced by the amount of the financial assistance given to the Liberal Alliance before the passing of this Resolution in respect of expenses so incurred

(5) Financial assistance for the SDP shall be determined as if at all times on and after 1st January 1988 and before the passing of this Resolution its representation in this House had consisted of those Members who are members of that party at the date on which this Resolution is passed

3.—(l) Any claims for financial assistance under this Resolution are to be made to the Accounting Officer of the House; and a party claiming such assistance shall—

(a) furnish that Officer with a statement of the facts on which the claim is based;
(b) certify to that Officer that the expenses in respect of which the assistance is claimed have been incurred exclusively in relation to the party's Parliamentary business; and
(c) as soon as practicable after each 31st December following the passing of this Resolution, furnish that Officer with the certificate of an independent professional auditor to the effect that all expenses in respect of which the party claimed financial assistance during the twelve months ending with that date were incurred as mentioned in paragraph (b) above

(2) Sub-paragraph (1)(c) above shall not apply in relation to financial assistance given on or after 1st January 1988 in respect of expenses incurred before that date by the Liberal Alliance or the SDP Alliance

4.—(1) In the case of any year in which there is a General Election—

(a) the period ending immediately before the date of the Election, and
(b) the period beginning with that day,
shall be treated for the purposes of this Resolution as separate years, but the maximum amount of financial assistance available to any party in respect of any period so treated shall be reduced correspondingly

(2) In this Resolution "year" means a year beginning with 1st January

5. The cost of providing financial assistance shall be borne on the House of Commons: members' salaries etc. Vote

Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Garel Jones.]

Mr. Irvine Patnick: During the course of this Adjourment debate I hope to outline to those hon. Members who are still in the Chamber a dilemma facing my constituents, patients, consultants, the Sheffield health authority, the hospital staff, the readers of The Star—the local newspaper which has informed everyone of the situation—and not least myself. The dilemma is that the Royal Hallamshire hospital, Sheffield has closed 109 of its beds, made reductions in the service of the ophthalmic department and cut back the funding of research work carried out by Dr. Kanis which has resulted in his obtaining a personal overdraft and seeking subscriptions from his colleagues and others to continue his work. Everyone must admit that that is no way to run a hospital
Having first-hand knowledge of the Royal Hallamshire hospital as a patient and visitor and having served as a one-time county and city councillor and a member of the community health council, no one is better placed than I to appreciate the gravity of the situation
The Hallamshire is in my constituency, as are the Trent district health authority headquarters, the Sheffield health authority headquarters, the family practitioner headquarters, the university and the polytechnic. Many of the staff and students live in Hallam and the faculty of medicine and dentistry is also in the area. As a lifelong citizen of Sheffield who has passed the hospital at least twice a day, I can claim more than a passing knowledge of it—and I do not intend any pun there
The exemplary efforts are on record to show that every effort has been made by the hospital and its staff to reduce unnecessary costs and for that I pay tribute to the staff, the administrators, and Sheffield health authority who all deserve tribute for their work. Supplying a first-class service while making economies remain the priorities of the Hallamshire
Designed in 1965 and opened in 1978, the Royal Hallamshire hospital cost only £32 million. If only such figures were possible now. It was built to replace the Sheffield royal infirmary and the Royal hospital, Sheffield. The Hallamshire has 730 beds and a staff of 3,200, or 2,500 whole-time equivalents. It inherited the traditional funding and staffing from the two small units that it replaced. From that point it was destined to be a financial loser as the appropriate funding never ensued. Everyone acknowledges—and it is statistically proven—that the Hallamshire has higher general overheads than the average provincial hospital. For example, the Hallamshire's energy bills and what it pays to Sheffield city council in lieu of rates will further my point
Correction of the unfortunate original design, which caused excessive costs, has led to a 15 per cent. reduction in energy costs during the past three years. For this year alone, the electricity bill is £920,000 and the gas bill is £985,000. Its huge monolithic structure, with large amounts of glass, means that on hot days the sun heats the buildings. The situation is reversed on cold days. While on hot days energy is used for cooling, on cold days it is used for heating. That is far from ideal, if not daft. Is it any

wonder that the comparability indicators for the use of energy for all regional health authorities show the Hallamshire as one of the highest users, if not the highest?
The hospital's rate payments to the city of Sheffield are also a cause for concern. In 1987–88, it paid some £1·5 million, and in 1988–89 some £1·6 million, in lieu of rates. According to my calculations, that equates to 3p in the pound of Sheffield city council's total rate income per year. When Sheffield city council was rate capped, the Hallamshire and the Sheffield health authority had an unexpected windfall and could use the cash saved for patient care, which was their original intention
All those matters lie beyond the control of the hospital and the health authority—thanks to Sheffield's high rates policy. It is more obvious when compared with the national average. On 10 May, my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he would list the available information for the 10 authorities with the highest combined rates. Sheffield came second with a poundage rate of £347·50. Therefore, hospital funding provided for health care goes, instead, to a spendthrift authority
Let us compare the Hallamshire's rates expenditure with the Sheffield Northern general hospital, whose payment in lieu of rates is only £920,000. While the Hallamshire is a high-rise building on a small site, the Northern general is on a large site with open fields and many buildings. If the building scheme scheduled for the northern general hospital is commenced, I am sure that in the long term it will relieve some of the pressure on Sheffield's Hallamshire hospital
The revenue budget for Sheffield district for 1988–89 stands at £175 million, up from £162 million in 1987, which is a significant increase on the 1979 figure of just over £72 million. A further positive result is that Sheffield now has a thorough increase in funding, together with more nurses, midwives, doctors and dentists, than in 1979
Some £120 million is allocated for new buildings and major facilities in Sheffield in the 1984–94 planning period. Despite that—and despite even an analysis of recent patterns of Government funding for the Sheffield health authority commissioned by the health care strategy group, a non-elected Sheffield city council panel—a report prepared for the city council by Colin Thunhurst of the Nuffield Institute for Health Service Studies at Leeds university grudgingly acknowledges that the Government have provided Sheffield health authority with more money for health care. We are all extremely grateful for that
The Hallamshire's share of the health authority's cake was a budget of £33 million in 1987–88 and £34·5 million for this financial year. The northern general hospital has a revenue budget of £35 million for 1988–89. I am not suggesting that robbing Peter to pay Paul is the way forward
The Hallamshire is short of cash and the actions outlined in my introduction are now in operation. That has resulted in ophthalmic care patients contacting me regarding treatment delay. A consultant, who is also a constituent, said in a letter to me:
We have had 12 beds closed since the end of October last year—almost a third of our beds.
He then said something quite interesting:
Only if patients do not arrive for operation"—
I hope that the Minister will take this on board—
or are found to be unfit are any other patients being sent for and these at short notice.


He states that anyone listed for cataract operations on his routine list may have to wait seven years. Before the bed closures, that waiting time was down to five months
The case of Dr. Kanis has received extensive media coverage and representations from grateful patients have been impressive. Jeremy Watson, medical correspondent of The Star, has hightlighted the plight of Dr. Kanis, who, after his five-bed metabolic unit was closed as part of the savings at the Hallamshire, decided to raise the funds to service the unit—£100,000 for the year
An abstract from the health authority review of the 1988–89 financial plan shows what amounts to a temporary closure of 14 orthopaedic beds, 15 ear, nose and throat beds and up to 72 beds and associated operating theatre sessions in other specialties. I cannot understand why that has happened. The Hallamshire has a 94 per cent. bed occupancy rate and its cost efficiency is all right. Is it that the hospital's financial problems really arise because of the volume and complexity of the work being carried out there? Can it really be that that, together, the rapidly rising cost of high technology and medicine—which are more heavily concentrated in the Hallamshire—are substantially outstripping the budget and the ability of the health authority to fund them? Or do the special costs of acute services in teaching hospitals in large cities, such as the Hallamshire, pose additional funding problems?
The teaching hospitals rightly make the case for additional funding to support centres of excellance and the added responsibilities that they carry. It has been estimated that 1 per cent. of the £175 million is the cost of that work at the Hallamshire. I understand that the Trent region accepts the principle that additional funding is needed, but has failed to provide a commitment for those funds. The Hallamshire is faced with an annual overspend of £500,000, arising from the additional costs for blood products, primarily for haemophilia patients treated under the region's specialised arrangements. Again, extra funding to meet that inevitable expenditure has not been provided by the region
The Hallamshire's total deficit amounts to £1·1 million, plus a consequent £1 million shortfall. Both of those sums are less than the annual payment that it makes to Sheffield city council's coffers in lieu of rates. If the £500,000 for haemophilia patients could be funded, that would be very welcome. Some £300,000 needs to be spent urgently to redesign the air handling plant and about £500,000 is also needed for essential alterations to the windows. The resulting long-term energy savings will create further economies. The sum of £60,000 is all that is needed from, say, the waiting list money to restore the ophthalmic unit
Many hon. Members may justifiably make similar pleas for special funding, but not for such important reasons as those that I have outlined. I am extremely grateful for all the funding that the Royal Hallamshire hospital has received. It is rather ironic that the shadow Leader of the House made reference to Oliver Twist in the previous debate. However, like Oliver Twist, on behalf of everyone who uses or may use the Hallamshire hospital I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, please may we have a little more?
When my hon. Friend replies, will she explain to my constituents in particular and to the area in general what is seen as the way out of the dilemma that they face? I submit that, through no fault of its own, the Royal

Hallamshire hospital appears to have been penalised for its own excellence and its obvious success. Can the Minister assist, please?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick on winning the ballot. I am sure that he has noticed, as I have, that he is the only Sheffield Member here tonight. I think that that is a pity and a reflection on some of those who have been elected to represent Sheffield
My hon. Friend has shown a keen interest in health matters on behalf of his constituents. When he and I get on the Master Cutler on a Monday morning we often discuss these issues, and again even later when I sometimes give him a lift to the House, so I am well versed in some of the issues that he has raised
I do not know whether he realises that he has written some 70 letters to my Department since the election last year, tabled seven questions and has now initiated this debate. I commend him to his constituents as being one of the most assiduous Members of the House, and certainly of the new intake. He has put his case very well indeed
Before discussing some of the detailed points that my hon. Friend has made, I should like to put the issues into a general context. As I am sure he knows, spending on the Health Service in the United Kingdom has increased from £7·7 billion in 1978–79—the year in which the Royal Hallamshire hospital was opened—to £22·7 billion this year. In cash terms, every family now contributes more than £1,600 a year to the National Health Service, whereas it contributed only £500 a year under Labour
That increased investment has resulted directly in treating more patients more effectively in more modern hospitals than ever before. The national figures show that about 1·25 million more in-patient cases were treated last year than 10 years ago, plus 500,000 extra day cases, and 4·5 million extra out-patient visits were paid each year
That is reflected in the increased number of staff that we have taken on. The national figures are represented in what are known as whole-time equivalents, or whole-time funded posts. We have more than 6,000 more doctors and dentists in NHS hospitals, more than 8,000 more doctors and dentists in general practice and almost 65,000 more nurses and midwives. Of course they are all better paid than ever before. The Government are meeting the £749 million bill for the nurses' pay award which was announced recently, and the most fundamental review ever carried out of nurses' future training needs is under way in Project 2000, which has also been announced
My hon. Friend mentioned the building of the Royal Hallamshire and the developments in his constituency and asked about other developments in Sheffield. When we came to power in 1979, we were faced with virtually a complete shutdown of the hospital building programme. The Royal Hallamshire—my hon. Friend has described its physical problems so aptly and eloquently—was built and completed during that time. We were trying to deliver 20th century health care in 19th century hospitals, so we started the most intensive and extensive hospital building programme ever. Since 1979, 286 schemes costing more than £1 billion have been started and completed in the


NHS. More than 500 schemes, with a total value of £3.8 billion, are at various stages of planning, design and construction
The Sheffield area is covered by Trent regional health authority, which also covers the Southern Derbyshire health authority, which, as my hon. Friend knows, encompasses my constituency. Spending in Trent has risen from £369 million in 1978–79 to £989 million in 1987–88, an increase of about 31 per cent. in real terms. For this year, 1988–89, Trent's initial cash allocation is increased by another 6·3 per cent.—well above inflation—to more than £1,050 million. That increase is above the national average increase of cash to the National Health Service. That means that Trent has been growing faster than the national average and is getting closer to its RAWP target
That also reflects the general recognition of Trent's poor funding compared with others in the past. Whatever Opposition Members might say if they were here, during the 1970s areas such as my hon. Friend's constituency and mine were in a very bad way and had long been neglected in the Health Service. Only in the past decade or so, and particularly in the past few years, has funding been able to catch up to the level demanded by the needs of the local population. I see my hon. Friend nodding in agreement with that
Trent's record on patient care is impressive. Between 1978 and 1987 the number of in-patient cases treated rose from 461,000 to 624,000, a huge increase of 35 per cent. Those are not just statistics. They represent hundreds of thousands more people every year being treated in the Trent hospitals. Last year, 1987–88, the number of people on waiting lists fell steadily. The number of people waiting for more than 12 months has fallen dramatically by more than 3,000—a drop of more than 20 per cent. There have been 27 major capital developments since 1979 in the region, with 14 others under construction and 23 approved to start
The Sheffield district health authority, which I know very well, having been there on a number of occasions, covers a population of about 530,000. As my hon. Friend said, it is a major centre for teaching and health care and it is Trent region's oldest teaching authority—the Trent region has three, including Nottingham and Leicester
Sheffield's current and expected temporary difficulties need to be seen in the context of substantial recent and future growth in Trent region and Sheffield. Allocation of funds to the district health authority is Trent's responsibility. Between 1982–83 and 1987–88, Sheffield's revenue spending increased from £122 million to £166 million, an increase of 36 per cent. in cash terms—one of the largest increases in the country. The initial allocation for 1988–89 is £175 million, including nearly £500,000 development funds. That is an enormous sum. Taking on board what my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam said about £30 million being a substantial sum 10 years ago, £175 million now makes Sheffield one of the biggest health authorities. It has had an enormous funding increase in recent years
Patient care has also increased significantly. Between 1982–83 and 1987–88, the number of in-patient cases increased by 41 per cent. That means that the Sheffield hospitals are coping with more than 2,000 in-patients every week and 12,500 out-patient visits every week, or rather more than 2,000 per working day. We are content that the money is well spent. The number of front-line staff in Sheffield has increased in terms of whole-time equivalents

from under 8,000 in 1982 to nearly 8,500 in 1986, the last year for which I have full details. Most of the increase of nearly 500 posts was due to extra nurses being taken on
There is also a major building programme in the Sheffield district. The most recent examples are a new out-patient and ward block at Northern general hospital which was formally opened in September by their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York. That block cost £10 million. I visited the new £6 million acute geriatric unit at the same hospital which will open this year. Currently under construction is a £9 million extension to the children's hospital. With such programmes we can look forward in Sheffield to being able at last to offer health care in modern facilities that accurately reflect the staffs skills
Sheffield is a major centre for high technology medicine with some of the leading clinicians in their field. For example, the stereotactic surgery unit, which is funded by the Department and is in its second year, is the only one in the country and one of only three in the world. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam has not had a chance to meet some of the people involved, I recommend that he does. The district is also the regional centre for all the regional specialties, including plastic and burns surgery, neurology and spinal injuries. Much specialist work has gone into child health care, particularly child leukaemia and the reduction of infant mortality
Sheffield is also doing excellent work in health promotion. Its "Health City 2,000" was launched a year ago and is geared to making Sheffield one of the healthiest cities in Britain. I am sure that my hon. Friend would join me in agreeing that there is room for a lot of progress, as coronary heart disease and lung cancer—among others —are among the worst in Britain. I ask my hon. Friend to check whether Sheffield city council, which has taken this matter seriously, has sorted out the issue of smoking on its buses. Last time I was there, I was impressed by signs on the side of the buses saying, "Smoking kills" but not impressed to see people on the top decks puffing away merrily. My hon. Friend may like to pursue that matter
I attended a seminar on nutrition and healthy eating at the Royal Hallamshire in November last year. It was a thoroughly stimulating and encouraging afternoon and the seminar was typical of the work in the district. There is a great deal that is first class in Sheffield and it is right that attention should be drawn to it. The NHS is giving excellent service to local people, and that is to the credit of all concerned, especially the staff
As my hon. Friend has described it, the Royal Hallamshire is a modern tower block hospital of 728 beds which was opened in 1978. I hope that we have learnt a lot from the Socialist building patterns of those days which have landed us with so many problems these days. The current financing problems need to be considered in relation to the rest of the district as well as to the particular circumstances of the hospital. Sheffield has 10 management units, including the Royal Hallamshire and the Northern general, which is another teaching hospital of a further 1,000 beds and has a budget of about £35 million. Some health authorities have budgets of that order for their entire district, but these are budgets for single hospitals
Last year, the Royal Hallamshire had an underlying deficit of £1·7 million—by far the largest deficit of any unit, including the Northern general hospital. Nearly all the other units kept more or less to their budgets I feel


bound to mention that the performance indicators for Sheffield and its hospitals are not too brilliant, although its hospitals are much cheaper than the equivalent teaching hospitals in London. As my hon. Friend said, average occupancy has reached 94 per cent., but that is not necessarily a good thing. It is too high a percentage and leaves no room for flexibility—for emergencies, for example. As a consequence, I understand that some patients were moved seven times during a stay of seven days, which is clearly unsatisfactory. I am not being critical. I recognise that there is pressure for more and more health care and that doctors, nurses and managers try to respond to it
We also recognise that centres of excellence such as the Royal Hallamshire face additional pressures simply because of the nature of their work and the need to support medical teaching. I understand that Trent regional health authority is committed to giving its teaching authorities additional support in the longer term to help them to cope with that
There have been some temporary closures, and I stress the word "temporary". Some of the decisions were made in consultation and agreement with the clinicians concerned who have established a peer group at the Royal Hallamshire to review medical practices and ensure that they are economical. That is a very sensible approach, and one that we should applaud, particularly in the light of the Government's increasing interest in medical audit. Whatever money we spend, we need our clinicians to check on the outcome: do we get a better outcome from one procedure than from another; can we get a more effective outcome; do we get better health?
My hon. Friend asked about the building scheme at Northern general hospital. I am delighted to announce approval in principle of a £24 million development at the Northern general hospital. The scheme will provide six new adult wards, two children's wards and four new operating theatres. It will also provide new out-patient facilities, including a colposcopy and laser clinic. The scheme is part of the modernisation of the Northern general hospital
I am delighted to convey to the House this stop-press information, which highlights my previous comments about a continued improvement in health services, now and for the future, for the people of Sheffield. Building work is expected to start in about May 1989 and is to be completed in 1992
The theme of my speech is that, although there may be a temporary problem at the Royal Hallamshire, it would be wrong to get it out of proportion or consider it out of context. Many routine aspects of health in Trent and Sheffield should be emphasised; they greatly outweigh the negative aspects
My hon. Friend raised one or two specific points to which I should like to respond. I share his concern about

rates in Sheffield. He may not be aware that the total amount paid in rates, or in lieu of rates, by the Trent regional health authority in 1986–87 was just under £21 million. That is the largest bill by a long way of any regional health authority in England. Sheffield's rates have increased substantially in the recent past. However, in two of the past four years, Sheffield has been rate-capped under the Government's legislation and hence has faced lower bills, which is more than can be said of neighbouring Derbyshire. The politicians of Sheffield should know that an estimated £4,250,000 of NHS money is to go into rates payments this year in Sheffield, and of that sum £1–3 million is for the Royal Hallamshire hospital alone
We have discussed energy problems pretty thoroughly, and I hope that the designs of our new buildings will take into account the problems outlined by my hon. Friend —problems that are all too common in buildings that were erected in the rather less tightly controlled 1970s. Money has been lent to Sheffield by Trent regional health authority for energy saving schemes, and I know that the DHA is doing its best to minimise payments. If we simply allocated extra money, there would be a lack of incentive to get normal energy costs under control, and that is an important matter. In the end, it is for the district health authority to manage its financial affairs on rates and energy as it sees fit
Let me finish with a comment about Dr. Kanis. We recognise the importance of his work, particularly in osteoporosis. He will be one of the speakers at the conference on women's health that I shall be chairing tomorrow. I understand that the health authority has not accepted his offer personally to fund his unit
However, the NHS is continuing to provide Dr. Kanis with in-patient facilities so that he may continue to treat his patients. His work with day and out-patients, where the majority of people are seen, will also continue to be substantially unaffected
Dr. Kanis is discussing with the district and regional health authorities how best to secure the long-term funding of his own in-patient unit as part of his research work for which, as my hon. Friend knows, he already receives a substantial grant of £700,000 from the Medical Research Council, a figure that ought to be set alongside some of the other funding values that we have been discussing. There is also no reason why other agencies and bodies should not bear at least a proportion of the cost over the short or long term, and I understand that Dr. Kanis is exploring this possibility. I look forward to meeting him again tomorrow
I hope that what I have said reveals our awareness and concern and our support for health care in Sheffield. I commend my hon. Friend's efforts on behalf of his constituents. They are very fortunate to have him as their representative

Question put and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve o'clock